1951-03-21

Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that it is expected that this will be the last day before the house rises for the Easter holiday, I should1 like to refer to a matter on a question of privilege, in view of the fact that I was not in the house the day that this matter arose.
On March 12, as reported on page 1133 of Hansard, a question asked by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr Courtemanche) was passed as an order for return. Had I been here I would have objected to that procedure, because a question in precisely the same form was asked and answered by the hon. member for York East (Mr. McGregor), with regard to certain developments at Sept lies. The wording was precisely the same, the other question was answered, and I am sure this is a question that should have been answered. The hon. member for Labelle has been seeking the information and has not been able to obtain it. We shall now be adjourning for the holiday, and I should like an explanation why this question was made an order for return when a question in the same form with respect to another project was answered a short time ago. I should like to know why the information has not been made available.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps I should say something in reply to the question of privilege that has been raised'. I was not advised that a question of privilege was to be raised, or I might have looked up some of the authorities with respect to passing a question as an order for return.
The simple fact of the matter is, however, that the question involves a reactor in the atomic energy project at Chalk River. It was passed as an order for return and sent out to the atomic energy control board in the usual way. I presume the answer will come back in the ordinary manner and will be given in the house.
If there is any guilt at all it is the guilt of trying to be careful with respect to some of these things that involve some degree of security. I am not in a position to discuss the question in detail, because the information is not at hand.
I might also point out that I have had the duty of answering a great number of questions in the house during the last five years, and members who have had questions on the order paper, the preparation of the answers to which appeared to be taking an unusual length of time, have often come to me and asked when they could obtain the answers. In this case there has been no such move. There could easily have been an explanation as to the procedure and possibly a speeding up of the obtaining of the answer. I will certainly try to get the information and give it to the house in the ordinary way.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the impression should be left which has been left -and I know quite unintentionally-by the hon. member who has just spoken. I am informed by the hon, member for Labelle that he addressed a letter to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) yesterday stating that he was seeking this information, and that unless the information bad been made available to him by three o'clock today the matter would be raised. I am raising it because this question is one of procedure which I think carries with it important consequences.
I should also like to point out that the question is not with respect to the reactor, and is not one involving any matter of security. The question is:	What firm of
engineers have been employed with regard to the construction of that reactor?


George James McIlraith: I think I should point out that the question involves more than that. It is in five parts, and involves, among other things, the basis of the fees payable. I have not seen the information, and am not able to say whether it involves the question of security, but I have had enough to do with matters arising out of that project to know that answers must be looked at carefully and properly. There may be a question of security in what looks like an innocent question.


George Alexander Drew: I do not wish to enlarge this into a debate, but I would point out that there can be no possible question of security in answering a question as to what percentage

House of Commons
is to be paid to this firm of engineers for the work they are doing with regard to the reactor.


George James McIlraith: I must object to that statement going on the record in that dogmatic way. How can the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) state that as a matter of fact, when I, who have been dealing with this sort of thing for some time in connection with this project, am not able to know whether or not a question of security arises.


Mr. Fraser:: Then you ought to read the question properly and you could understand it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Read the question. You can see it right there.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, March 21, 1951
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, Wednesday, the 21st of March, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the communication from the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General that you have just read, I should like at this time to reserve the right, if it should be necessary to do so, to make some appropriate motion later in the day in order to dispose of the legislation for which royal assent would be required. I hope that it will not be necessary, and that by general consent we shall be able to dispense with making any motion; but I should not like to forgo at this time the right to submit a motion to Your Honour should it become apparent that it was necessary to do


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the Prime Minister he is simply placing the presentation of the motion in a reserved 
position, and any of the rights with respect to consent or otherwise are not waived by the house.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: All I am asking is that we may revert to motions without there being any other commitments on anybody's part.



REPORTS OF CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CHANGES IN COMPENSATION OF STAFFS OF HOUSE OF COMMONS AND LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay before the house a report from the civil service commission recommending changes in the compensation of the staff of the House of Commons; also a report from the civil service commission recommending changes in the compensation of the staff of the library of parliament.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I move:
That the report of the civil service commission recommending changes in the compensation of the staff of the House of Commons, tabled today, be concurred in.


Mr. Fulton:: Have you a summary of the effect of the motion?


Alphonse Fournier: Some months ago increases were granted to all civil servants on a scale that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) announced in the house. The same scale was applied to the staff of the House of Commons, but cannot be paid to them without the concurrence of the house because they come under our jurisdiction.


Mr. Casselman:: Does that apply to all members of the staff of the House of Commons, or only to certain chosen members?


Alphonse Fournier: I am relying upon
the report of the civil service commission. I do not know whether they would make any discrimination as between members of the staff.


Arza Clair Casselman: Then you cannot answer
the question; is that it?


Alphonse Fournier: I can always answer,
but I do not know whether I can satisfy the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Speaker:: Probably the house would
like to know that a number of employees of the house are not under the civil service commission. I think that may be the point of the question raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Casselman). The temporary and sessional employees who are

not under the commission are not covered by the report which has been tabled, but according to the practice these employees are receiving comparable increases under another schedule the Clerk has drawn up, which it is not necessary to present to the house.


Mr. Knowles:: May we take it, then, that between these two schedules all the employees of the House of Commons are covered?


Mr. Speaker:: I think I am safe in saying
that is correct. I do not say the increase is exactly the same, but I believe I am right in saying that all employees are covered by those two reports, according to the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Alphonse Fournier: By leave of the house I move:
That the report of the civil service commission recommending changes in the compensation of the staff of the library of parliament, laid on the table of this house today, be referred to the joint committee on the library of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will
recall that, in the statement I made on February 5, I said that the government had offered to the North Atlantic treaty organization to train additional aircrew. The number proposed was 1,100 per annum, which would bring the total to be trained for NATO and the United Kingdom something over 1,300 per annum.
We have now received the recommendation of the standing group that all the places available in respect of this additional number up to December 31 of this year should be allocated to the United Kingdom. After that the allocation will be reconsidered.
At present our plans provide for a build-up to an annual output of aircrew of over 3,000. That represents an increase of six times the figure for 1950 and fifteen times the figure for the previous year.
This will be accompanied by a fivefold increase in groundcrew training facilities.
Administrative establishments will also be increased though not to the same extent.
This will require the reopening of a number of airfields. During the war we had a total of 56 airfields used for training either under the British commonwealth air training plan or other plans.
Air Training Plan
We already have air training schools and operational stations or other units in operation or under construction at Goose Bay, and, to a very limited extent, Torbay in Newfoundland; at Summerside in Prince Edward Island; at Dartmouth and Greenwood in Nova Scotia; at Moncton, to a limited extent, and Chatham in New Brunswick; at Bagotville, St. Hubert, St. Johns and Dorval in Quebec; at Rockcliffe, Uplands, Arnprior, Trenton, Downsview, North Bay, Centralia, Clinton and Aylmer in Ontario; at Winnipeg, Gimli and Rivers in Manitoba; at Edmonton, Calgary and Suffield in Alberta; and at Patricia Bay, again to a limited extent, and Vancouver in British Columbia. There are, of course, other headquarters and depots in addition.
Experience during the second world war, when Canada trained 131,000 aircrew, showed that the best places for flying training was in the prairie provinces. Located in these provinces are a number of flying fields with runways, hangars and buildings in a relatively good state of repair, enabling re-establishment to be done as speedily and economically as possible.
Accordingly, all the new flying schools will be located in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Also, to facilitate maintenance and administration and to take advantage of more suitable weather, basic flying training schools will be grouped in the western part of this area, while advanced flying schools will be grouped in the eastern part of this area.
The new schools to be re-established are flying training schools at Claresholm and Penhold in Alberta and Moose Jaw in Saskatchewan. Advanced flying training schools are to be at Saskatoon in Saskatchewan and Portage la Prairie in Manitoba, with a gunnery school at Macdonald. The flying training school at Gimli will later be converted to an advanced training school. A large air navigation school will be established at Winnipeg in addition to the present school at Summer-side, P.E.I.
Of the existing establishments, Aylmer, Camp Borden and Clinton in Ontario will concentrate on trades training. Selection and manning will be carried on at St. Johns, Quebec, where there will be a very large establishment.
With hardly an exception, all the other establishments will be increased in accordance with the expansion of the program. Abbotsford will be used this summer for training some of the auxiliary squadrons, others going to other schools. In all probability Abbotsford will later be used as an operational station.

Air Training Plan
In this connection I should like to say that a large number of representations have been received from members of parliament, mayors, boards of trade and other representatives of most of the localities mentioned and many others. They have all offered the closest possible co-operation and reception to the R.C.A.F., with which they had such excellent relations during the war. That co-operative spirit is very greatly appreciated.
The places chosen have been selected having sole regard to two factors: first, suitability for the purpose intended; second, the condition of the existing facilities so as to provide for the most economic and speedy rehabilitation.
The facilities of all the stations will be used to the fullest extent possible. For example, by improved training methods we expect to have pupil populations of 300 at the flying training schools, as compared with 240 during the second world war. The limiting factor at each school will be the number of hours of flying that physically can be fitted in, having regard to the weather and capacity of the airfield.
To operate the plan will require a large number of additional aircraft for training. My colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), announced in the house on March 5 that we would be manufacturing Harvards of the most modern type, as well as engines. In addition to meeting our own requirements, we expect to make a number of these aircraft for sale to the United States. In the meantime, our own needs can be met out of our own stocks, supplemented, if necessary, by aircraft borrowed from the United States, to be replaced out of our own production later.
We shall also be acquiring from the United States some two-seater jet training aircraft to be used until our own production enables us to meet all our own needs for this type of aircraft.
The record made during the second world war in the British commonwealth air training plan has shown that Canada is particularly qualified to make this important contribution to our collective security.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) has very properly availed himself of the privilege which is accorded by unanimous consent to make a statement of this kind, I think it is proper that I should refer to the subject which he has mentioned.
It will be recalled that on earlier occasions I have urged that time should be set aside for a debate in an orderly way on the subject
'Mr. Claxton.]
of national defence. There can be no more important subject for this house to consider at a known time, and in a way which will make it possible for views to be clearly expressed on all sides of the house, than that of national defence.
What has now been placed before the house by way of information as to the general plans for training pilots and aircrew indicates the increasing importance of this subject. It is important not to overlook the fact that every night, and in fact at times during the day, the Department of National Defence is making an appeal in which the words are used, "The need is urgent; the time is now." Mr. Speaker, with this greatly expanded program announced by the minister, I urge that the Prime Minister indicate that there will be a settled date for a debate on national defence immediately or shortly after this house resumes following the Easter recess.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I believe it will be very easy to arrange that under the existing standing orders of the house. The general estimates have now been tabled, and I shall be glad immediately after the Easter recess to discuss with my hon friend and with the leaders of the other groups the selection of a day to call the estimates of the Department of National Defence, and to arrange as to what time should be devoted to that subject before passing anything else.


Mr. Dechene:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the announcement made by the Minister of National Defence may I be allowed to direct a question to him? Some time ago a rumour was circulated in Edmonton, pursuant to an announcement made in the legislature of Alberta by a local member, concerning the establishment of an air training school near a place called Lac la Biche in the constituency of Athabaska. Is there any truth in that report?


Brooke Claxton: Consideration has been given to that, and discussions are now under way with the government of Alberta as to whether the very large area that would be necessary might be made available by the province.



ESTIMATES, 1951-52   TABLING OF SUMMARY OF STANDARD OBJECTS OF EXPENDITURE AND SPECIAL CATEGORIES

Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to table, in connection with the estimates, a summary of standard objects of expenditures and special categories. I indicated when I tabled the estimates that at that time this summary had not then been printed. It is now available.



QUESTION AS TO REARRANGEMENT OF HOURS OF SITTING

Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. In some sections of the press this morning there was an indication that yesterday I had made a plea in the house for shorter hours of sitting of the House of Commons. I am quite sure that the fault with the announcement in that form could not properly be laid at the doorstep of the press, but was rather attributable to the way in which I phrased it yesterday. Perhaps I did not make my point as clear as I should have. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that what I had in mind, as I believe most members knew, was not a request for shorter sitting hours. I was only asking for a rearrangement of the present sitting hours so that they would be more convenient for members, particularly with respect to the late hours that we sit at night.
While I am on my feet, may I say how pleased I was to have had an offer of co-operation from the Prime Minister in connection with this matter. I hope that after the Easter recess we shall somehow be able to work out something which will be satisfactory to all members, and which at the same time will not interfere with the work of the house but will rather expedite it.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Viola Rupert Moran.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 171, for the relief of Philip Rosen.- Mr. Winkler.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Fulton:: 1.	What was the amount of the savings in ordinary expenditure, as reflected in the estimates for 195152, effected by the government economy drive?
2.	What are the details of these savings by departments?


George James McIlraith: The details of the estimates, both in individual votes and in the supporting material appearing on pages 73 to 531 of the main estimates volume, show where savings have been made in expenditures after suitable recognition is given to increases in costs arising from higher wages, salaries, and prices, and after further suitable allowance is made for changes in policies, circumstances, and indirect defence requirements. A more specific answer can only be obtained by discussion of individual votes.
Questions


CONTRACTS FOR NAVAL STORES, ESQUIMALT
Mr. Maclnnis:: Who was the successful tenderer, and at what price, for each class of goods in the call for tenders by the Canadian Commercial Corporation, Nos. R-33-38-320/2, Nos. R-33-38-320/3 and Nos. R-33-38-320/4, supplies for naval stores, Esquimalt, British Columbia?


George James McIlraith: R-33-38-320/2-awarded to Soapbone Products Limited, Edmonton, Alberta, at $0.14 per lb.
R-33-38-320/3-awarded to Dominion Linseed Oil Co., Limited, Outremont, Quebec, at $0,115 per lb.
R-33-38-320/4-awarded to Harrison & Crosfield (Canada) Limited, Winnipeg, Manitoba, at $0.2235 per lb.


CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION- STOCKPILING OF WOOL
Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	Has the Canadian Commercial Corporation been stockpiling wool?
2.	If so, was it requested to do so by the defence department?
3.	How much wool has the corporation now on hand?
4.	What proportion of this wool is for uniforms?
5.	How many uniforms can be made from the wool now on hand?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	No, but orders have been placed for current needs.
2.	No.
3.	None.
4.	Approximately 60 per cent of all wool purchases will be used for uniforms.
5.	Answered by No. 3.
holman's wharf, summerside, p.e.i.


Mr. Kickham:: 1.	Does His Majesty the King in right of Canada own the site on which Holman's wharf, Summerside, Prince Edward Island, is situated?
2.	If so, from whom was the site purchased, and what was the purchase price?
3.	Does His Majesty the King in right of Canada own the roadway leading from Water street, Summerside, to said Holman's wharf?
4.	If so, from whom was the right of way or road purchased, and what was the purchase price?
5.	By years, how much money has been spent on this wharf by the Department of Public Works?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Under P.C. 1045, dated March 8, 1949, the site was transferred to the Department of Public Works, free of charge, by the firm of R. T. Holman Limited.
3.	Yes.
4.	Under P.C. 1045 dated March 8, 1949, the right of way to wharf was transferred to

Orders for Returns
the Department of Public Works, free of charge, by the firm of R. T. Holman Limited.
5.	1947-1948,	$1,196.47;	1949-1950,
$15,056.54; 1950-1951, $4,402.86 (to Feb. 28, 1951).


BUTTER-PROVINCE OF QUEBEC-PRODUCTION AND RETAIL PRICES
Mr. Boisvert:: 1.	What was the production of butter in the province of Quebec for the following years, 1945, 1946,
1947,	1948, 1949 and 1950?
2.	What was the average retail price of butter at Montreal for the following years 1945, 1946, 1947,
1948,	1949 and 1950?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	Butter	Creamery
(Total Production) Butter lb.	lb.
1945	
96,294,000	88,061,0001946	
93,395,000	85,355,0001947	
105,654,000	97,371,0001948	
106,833,000	96,783,0001949	
102,039,000	93,623,0001950	
96,567,000	87,820,000
2. Average Retail Price * of Creamery Butter at Montreal
Cents per Pound
1945	 39-5
1946	 43-8
1948 			 72-2
1949 			 64-7
1950 			 59-9
* Average of quotations at independent stores on the first business day of each month.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
CIVIL DEFENCE-GRANTS TO PROVINCES Mr. Thatcher:
During the present fiscal year, what direct grants has the government made to each province for civil defence?

Mr. Balcom:: 1.	What is the weekly wage and salary payroll of the icebreakers (a) N. B. McLean; (b) Ernest Lapointe; (c) Saurel?
2.	What is the estimated weekly upkeep, apart from payroll, of each of these vessels?
3.	What is the estimated dollar value of weekly depreciation of each of these vessels?
4.	What is the total amount represented by the above?
5.	How many weeks has each of these vessels
been engaged on icebreaking operations on the St. Lawrence since January i, 1951?	[DOT]
IMr. Fournier (Hull) .1


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CARS AND TRUCKS
Mr. Kirk (Aniigonish-Guysborough):: 1.	What federal government departments own and operate or have owned and operated cars and/or trucks in the province of Nova Scotia, during each year ended December 31, 1946 to 1950 inclusive?
2.	What method or system is used in each department of government in purchasing either for cash or trade-in cars and/or trucks?
3.	What are the particulars of all purchases, either for cash or trade-in, of all cars and/or trucks purchased in Nova Scotia, for each department of government, during each of the years ending December 31, 1946, to 1950 inclusive?


OLD AGE PENSIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Before we rise for the Easter recess, will the Minister of Justice bring us up to date in the matter of negotiations with the provinces concerning old age pensions?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for having given me oral notice of his question. I have not yet received a reply to my letter of February 28 from Premier Campbell. I received a reply from Premier Douglas approximately one hour ago. I should like to add that these facts have not prevented us from carefully considering all the points which have been raised by the other eight provincial premiers in their replies to my said letters. This we have done in order to put ourselves in a position to deal with this matter promptly as soon as we hear from Premier Campbell and give consideration to Premier Douglas' letter.
While I am on my feet, I should like to deal with a point which was raised by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on Monday last when this same question was mentioned.
The hon. member at that time stated that both Premier Campbell and Premier Douglas had answered favourably long ago. That, Mr. Speaker, is not correct. It is true that in reply to previous letters they had both written that they favoured the proposed old age pensions amendment, in principle. The points with which we are dealing here are whether there shall be a constitutional amendment authorizing federal old age pensions, and also with the form of that amendment; and also, of course, with the substance and form of an amendment relating to a three per cent provincial indirect retail sales tax. In this connection we are dealing not with only two provinces, but with ten.

In my letter of February 28 I was chiefly concerned with observations which a number of the provincial premiers had made with respect to both the form and the substance of these two draft amendments which the federal government had previously submitted to them. Four provincial premiers had objected to the form of the old age pensions amendment. In my letter of February 28, concerning which these questions have been asked, I did submit two new alternative drafts to take care of the objections which these four provincial premiers had raised, and also of course dealt with other matters.
The replies which we have been awaiting are as to whether Premier Douglas and Premier Campbell concur in our attempts to meet the views of these other provinces. Since we wish, if at all possible, to get unanimous agreement in this matter, there is no purpose in my writing another letter to all the provincial premiers, in a further attempt to secure agreement both as to substance and as to form, until I hear from all the provincial premiers in reply to my letter of February 28. Or, to put it another way, there is no purpose in commencing another stage of the work until we complete the present stage, and we cannot complete the present stage until we hear from all the provinces concerning it.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. Earl Catherwood (Haldimand):: should like to ask a question of the Minister of Resources and Development. Having regard to the fact that provision has been made for a $300,000 building in Montreal, which rumour says is to be a national film board undertaking, will the minister comment on the report to the effect that the headquarters of the film board are being moved to Montreal?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: Mr. Speaker,
the film board is at present occupying, in whole or in part, eight buildings in Ottawa and three at Pendleton. In the interests of efficiency and economy, it is considered that steps should be taken toward consolidating the board's operations under one roof.
In this connection some thought has been given to a suitable location. Montreal is among the centres under consideration. Being a centre of bilingual culture, it has much to commend it. No site has been chosen, and no plans have been prepared. The amount
Inquiries of the Ministry in question in the estimates is for the purpose of obtaining a site and starting plans for a suitable building. I might add that this is a long-term plan and that no move is imminent.


Mr. Sinnoit:: Winnipeg would be a good place.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. Will he indicate when it is expected that the report of the committee engaged in the revision of the Combines Investigation Act will be completed?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I should like to thank the hon. member for Eglinton for having given me notice of his question.
On February 14 last the hon. member asked me whether I could indicate to the house when I expected to receive the report of the committee, and I replied then that I would think that the target date, about March 1, which was planned, would still remain the target date and that we should then shortly know whether it would be possible for us to achieve that goal in actual fact. I have since received from the Hon. Mr. Justice McQuarrie, the chairman of the committee, the reasons why this goal has not been achieved. I think that I should preface these reasons with a brief statement of the events down to the present in order that the house will understand that the committee is proceeding with the utmost haste that is compatible with the seriousness of its task.
On June 27, 1950, I announced in this house the appointment of the committee and its terms of reference.
The committee held its first meeting in Ottawa early in July, 1950. Following this meeting, the committee, in order to obtain as wide an expression of opinion as possible, notified the public, by letters to trade, labour and consumer organizations and to business firms and to the press, that for its assistance in this study the committee was anxious to receive at an early date from such organizations, firms and individuals, whatever views they might wish to express upon matters within its terms of reference.
In response to this request a considerable number of formal briefs and numerous informal letters and communications were received by the committee. There were many

Old Age Pensions
requests for delay from persons and organizations who wished to make representations but were unable, by reason of its being the summer holiday season or for other reasons, to prepare their material within the time indicated by the committee. There were also many requests for interviews. In the result, few briefs were received before mid-autumn, and briefs have continued to come in to the committee until December, 1950, the last one being received from a large national organization in a covering letter dated December 7, 1950. Many interviews were held throughout this period, that is, from midsummer to February.
The committee, since its first meeting in Ottawa on July 4, has held a considerable number of further committee meetings in Ottawa and completed a session of two and a half weeks during February, 1951. Towards the end of this last session the chairman informed me that, because of the voluminous data to be examined and the complexity of the problems that required extended study and consideration, the original target date would have to be advanced, since the work of the committee would require considerable further time before completion.
He said that he and his colleagues would do their best to finish and present their report before the end of the present session of parliament, but he could not guarantee that this would be possible.


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee of supply.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair I should like to take this opportunity to comment briefly upon the remarks made a moment ago by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). I wish to thank him for the answer he gave indicating that an endeavour is being made to reach an agreement with the various provinces as to the wording of appropriate constitutional amendments so as to make possible implementation of the old age pensions program recommended to parliament last June.
What I wish to say resolves itself into two items. In the first place I feel it would be only fair, since the Minister of Justice has referred to the fact that he received a communication from the premier of Saskatchewan today, to indicate that I have in my hand a copy of the Votes and Proceedings of the Saskatchewan legislature for Friday, March 16. From exchanges of telegrams I have had this week with the premier of Saskatchewan I believe I can say that a copy of this issue of Saskatchewan's Votes and Proceedings has been furnished to the Minister of Justice, with the letter he received this afternoon.
I note that on Friday, March 16, the Saskatchewan legislative assembly adopted two resolutions dealing with this matter, both of which were moved by Premier Douglas and seconded by Mr. Fines, the provincial treasurer. The first one deals with an amendment to the British North America Act with respect to old age pensions. The second one deals with an amendment to that same statute regarding indirect taxation within the province. May I read the first of these resolutions:
That this assembly approves in principle the amendment to the British North America Act proposed by the government of Canada following the federal-provincial conference held in December, 1950, designed to provide that while the legislature may make laws in relation to old age pensions within the province, the parliament of Canada may make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada, and authorizes the lieutenant governor in council to approve any amendment incorporating such principle or to approve any amended wording suggested by the government of Canada and deemed to embody such principle.
I will not take the time to read the other resolution. It is longer, but it concludes with the same language, namely, that the assembly has authorized the lieutenant governor in council to approve the amendment suggested in the resolution regarding indirect taxation, or any amended wording suggested by the government of Canada having the same effect. The point I wish to make clear is that in addition to the earlier stand taken by Premier Douglas in support of the general plan for the new old age pension set-up, which is what I was referring to on Monday, that province has now made clear that it is prepared to co-operate fully in the wording or the redrafting of any necessary amendments which are required so as to proceed with this matter. I hope the Minister of Justice will soon receive a similarly favourable communication from his successor in the premiership of Manitoba, Mr. Campbell,

and then he will have had communications from all ten provinces.
The other point I wish to make is that I hope the Minister of Justice and the government as a whole will proceed with this matter just as rapidly as they can. I realize the kind of difficulty that they are working under. They are dealing with constitutional amendments; they are dealing with ten provincial premiers and with the constitutional lawyers who sit at the elbows of these various premiers. Nevertheless the reason I am bringing it up is that in the speech from the throne on January 30 it was indicated that the new old age pension proposals had been laid before the provinces, and I quote:
The provincial governments are at present giving consideration to these proposals and to proposals for constitutional amendments which may require to be submitted to you before the close of the present session.
On February 5 I directed a question to the Prime Minister as to what efforts would be made by the government to deal with this matter in sufficient time so as to bring before the house at this session both the necessary amendments to the constitution and legislation based on those amendments. My latter reference was to legislation implementing the plan recommended last year by the special committee. The answer of the Prime Minister, as recorded on page 72 of Hansard, was- and I think I am fair to him if I quote the second paragraph only, since it is the relevant one:
As stated in the speech from the throne, the matter is before the provincial governments for their consideration, and it is and will be the policy of the government to avoid any possible delay when agreement has been reached to have that agreement implemented.
Those were the words of the Prime Minister. Let me point out that two or three times since then, when questions have been raised regarding early implementation of this plan, reference has been made back to that statement given by the Prime Minister on February 5. We are all agreed. We want to see action at this session. Whatever the date of the end of the session may prove to be, time is moving on; and my reason for rising at this time is to urge the government to give the best attention that they can to this matter, in the hope that their own desire, which we support very strongly, to take action at this session will be implemented before prorogation date overtakes us.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think I can reply in two sentences to the
Supply-Agriculture
points raised by my hon. friend. In the first place, I can say that there has been no act or omission of this government which is in any way inconsistent with the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) which my hon. friend has just quoted. In the second place, I think I should say that we in the government can only feel very much complimented that the legislature of Saskatchewan, by unanimous vote, has approved the principle of the amendment which we proposed, and has authorized the lieutenant governor in council of Saskatchewan to approve any amended wording suggested by the government of Canada and to embody such principle. That is as gracious a gesture of confidence as we have had from any source in quite a long while.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Special-
576. To authorize and provide for a payment to the Canadian wheat board which shall be dealt with by the board in all respects as though it was money received from the sale of wheat produced in the designated area, sold and delivered to the board by producers during the pool period commencing on the first day of August, 1945, and ending on the thirty-first day of July, 1950, and to authorize the board, notwithstanding the provisions of subsections 2 and 3 of section 22 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, to distribute such amount together with all other moneys received by the board from the sale of such wheat, after making the deductions provided for in the said section 22, among holders of certificates issued by the board pursuant to part III of the said act during the pool period aforesaid, by paying to the person named in such certificate the same sum for each bushel of wheat referred to therein, $65,000,000.
The Deputy Chairman:: Perhaps I should
read again the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson). It is as follows:
That item 576 of the further supplementary estimates be reduced from $65 million to $1.


Mr. Coldwell:: Is the minister able to supply the house with the comprehensive statement on subsidies and subventions that was asked for?


Mr. Gardiner:: Yes; I have it. In order to bring it up to what was suggested last night there will have to be two tables put on. One is a table for the first eleven months of the fiscal year 1950-51, ending February 28, 1951.


Major James William Coldwell: Put in on Hansard.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will put it on Hansard.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Garfield Gardiner: The tables follow:

Supply-Agriculture
Net Cost of Subventions, Bonuses and Subsidies Paid by the Federal Department of Agriculture Fiscal Year 1950-51
(First Eleven Months, Ending February 28/51)
Amount Paid in Canada
(thousand dollars)
Cheese-quality premium	 819
-factory improvement ..	229
Cheese for United Kingdom contract	 1,786
Apples (grants)	 2,500
Compensation for diseased animals slaughtered	 1,648
Livestock purchase and distribution policies	 67
Livestock breeding programs ..	33
Hog premiums	 4,435
Bacon for United Kingdom contract	 *1,094
Feed freight assistance	 12,569
Lime	 314
Cold storage warehouses	 407
Replacement of maple production
equipment	 337
Amount Paid in Canada
(thousand dollars)
Grants - Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act:
payments to producers	 336
Grants to agricultural organizations	 125
National livestock records grant	18
Grant to Canadian Horticultural
Council	 5
Grants to fairs and exhibitions .	341
Prairie farm assistance	 b2,771
Land settlement assistance'	....	178Prairie farm rehabilitation'	....	2,947Maritime dikelands rehabilitation'	
693Land reclamation and development in B.C.'	
383Major irrigation and water conservation projects in the prairie provinces'	
6,667
"Computed at $3.50 per 100 lbs. on quantity shipped and claimed to February 28, 1951. *To January 24, 1951.
'Exclusive of administration expenses.



NET COST OF SUBVENTIONS, BONUSES AND SUBSIDIES PAID BY THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF

[Stage Direction]
AGRICULTURE-FISCAL YEARS 1939^40 TO 1949-50
	Amount Paid in Canada											Total
1939-40	1940-41	1941-42	1942-43	1943-44	1944-45	1945-46	1946-47	1947-48	1948-49	1949-50	11 Yrs.-the	rnsand doll	ars-	8,922	12,659 23,640 1,869 4,162 1,602 46 6	12,919 22,885 1,699 4,156 1,659 28	9,952 21,425 1,399 a4,983 1,254 186	44,452 88,070 5,852 14,740 13,567 1,330 4018,539	1,581 12	873	Milk for cheddar cheese	1,172 1,482 117 34	267	598	1,055 82	1,494 182	1,745 217	919	784	975	-factory improvement	
Creamery butter for storage and	46	139	138	149	1,784	1,784 5,262945	2,548	1,768	1	dl09	d61	1,647	1,817 690682	8	el94	194245	495	614	1,354 20,050g 1,059	4,228	A741	2,192	1,833	1,035	354	958	dl.OOO	13,325	13,325	1,500	1,500109	169Seeds-field root, vegetable forage	11	k	5	14	33	58	174	295ii	41	52Forage crop seeds-return on par-	81	105	18618	25	23	665	4	3	4	4	4	5	5	34Compensation for diseased animals	810	519	359	375	360	193	170	163	387	1,088	2,279	6,703Livestock purchase and distribu-	72	47	53	84	36	64	44	62	123	46	132	76338	38111	12	23	4	13	5	1683,855	14,091	9,573	14,506	5,474	4,483	4,937	46,9192,281	2,281Wool...	90	155	194	69	508305	620	925Butter (1949 production)	1,868	1,868
£
>
a
o
«
u>
Supply-Agriculture

NET COST OF SUBVENTIONS, BONUSES AND SUBSIDIES PAID BY THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-FISCAL YEARS 1939-40 TO 1949-50-Concluded
	Amount Paid in Canada											Total
1939-40	1940-41	1941-42	1942-43	1943-44	1944^5	1945-46	1946-47	1947-48	1948-49	1949-50	11 Yrs.-the	usand doll	ars-	4,485	10,243	17,716	15,955 675	17,262 1,274	18,945 1,551	20,094 434	17,555 425	16,682	138,9374,3591,292 4,501	40	1,332 31,574836	7,471	7,864	6,474	4,421	7	5,465	5,4658,506	8,50629,654	24,526 1	30,102 67	1,707 23	397	2	86,388 976	26	26213	227	278	341	316	408	434	2,2171,036	903	446	438	490	281	3,594Compensation to farmers for the	11	11133	99	44	83	47	140	249	459	441	592	693	2,980Refrigeration on railway cars	
Grants for potato warehouse con-	7	5	7	7	7	6	6	8	5	5	6313	13Replacement of maple production	106	12	88	194	203	360	472	1,4353	3Manufacture of patterns and tools	16	16Rebates to purchasers of flax scut-	174	174Assistance in marketing cattle and	21	21Grants-Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act: payments to producers for ranch-bred	438	m509	947Grants to agricultural organizations National livestock records grant.. Grant to Canadian Horticultural Council	260 20 5	190 18 5	147 18 5	133 18 5	122 18 5	107 18 5	101 IS 5	122 18 5	137 18 5	144 18 5	103 18 5	1,566 200 551494	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture
Grants to fairs and exhibitions.... Relief n in drought areas of the	383 1,545 715	65 c	65 c	65	65	65	63	87	268	357	397	1,880 1,545 715 18,998 125,806 353 24,232 420 704 462 4,151 92
												
16,299 13,681	2,678 2,293	19 6,159 1,258	2 7,010	Prairie farm assistance payments o.	9,454 279 2,451	6,699 65 1,853	16,483	10,917	16,795	14,859	21,450 9 2,786 296 341 405 4,151 92	Prairie farm rehabilitation p	1,898	1,218	1,180	1,549	2,059 25 49	3,037 46 139 11	4,943 53 166 46	Drainage and land reclamation in	9	Land reclamation and development in B O	Major irrigation and water conser-	Grant for construction of flood con-	Annual totals	17,869	15,036	73,535	48,384	101,154	97,740	103,232	87,131	70,603	51,924	64,406	731,014
a Includes $1,000 paid in 1949-50. b Payment of subsidies on cheese began in June 1939. c Revenue covered expenditure. d Price support.
e Price support for the 1948 Ontario crop. f Payment of subsidies on apples began in September 1939.
0	The government also purchased $87 thousand worth of B.C. apples for distribution in drought areas of the prairies. h Refunds from sale of previous year's crop decreased the total expenditure this year by $1,515 thousand.
1	Price support for 1947 and 1948 crops. j Included with "apples".
k Less than $500.
I On April 1, 1946 the rate of premium changed from $3.00 for A and $2 for Bl carcasses to $2 and $1 respectively.
?n Consists of payments made for pelts delivered during 1946-47 and 1947-48. n Direct feed and fodder relief.
o Total payment, including amount collected through the 1 per cent levy on grain marketed. p Exclusive of administrative costs.
s
>
a
o
a
Cn
Supply-Agriculture
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
Major James William Coldwell: Can the minister reply to the two questions asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Melfort?


James Garfield Gardiner: The only reply I can make is this, that just so far as the regular rules with regard to the action of cabinet ministers made it possible to meet with and discuss these matters with the leaders of the farm movements, I did in every case, and I have known right along what the views of the leaders of the farm movements were from one step to another.


Major James William Coldwell: That is with regard to $48 million?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; that has been discussed with them, and with regard to all matters dealing with the whole position.


Major James William Coldwell: May I take it that there is no appropriation coming down with regard to $48 million?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no appropriation in any case involved in connection with that matter. This matter is being dealt with on its merits as it is.


Mr. Gibson:: It is going down to $1.


The Chairman:: Shall the amendment
carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Alexander Drew: When this subject was being discussed yesterday the Minister of Agriculture put forward certain arguments in regard to the payment of the $65 million, which, on careful examination of Hansard, are just as impossible to understand as they were when he made the speech in the house yesterday.
The fact is that his attempt to create the impression that the $65 million was arrived at in some orderly mathematical manner is not borne out by the statement of the Prime Minister, because the Prime Minister made it quite clear that this was not a figure arrived at in that way. On March 15, as reported at page 1283 of Hansard the Prime Minister had this to say:
Now, why $65 million? From the start it had been clearly understood there could not be any mathematical calculation of the consequence of this "have regard to" clause.
Then later in his remarks the Prime Minister said:
That has been the position from the start, that there could not be any mathematical calculation of something expressed in the terms used in this agreement.
The Prime Minister then went on to say that $65 million remained of the loan of $1,250 million, and the words he used were these:
Had the government of the United Kingdom seen fit to draw that amount of $65 million and use it

as a settlement of anything legitimately or properly expected under the "have regard to" clause, the government of Canada would not have felt required to do anything more, and would have been quite content to say that everything that could reasonably be expected as a consequence of the "have regard to" clause had been discharged by that payment.
I submit that those words are not open to any misunderstanding or misinterpretation. They make it perfectly clear that in the mind of the Prime Minister the only way in which the figure of $65 million was arrived at was that there was a balance of this loan still there, and that if the suggestion of the Canadian government had been accepted and the $65 million had been taken up by the British government and then paid as the balance owing under the contract, that figure would have been accepted by the Canadian government and paid over to the pool as the amount that they were able to obtain from the government of the United Kingdom.
I mentioned the statement of the Prime Minister for this reason. He has stated clearly what actually happened. When discussion of this subject was renewed' last December and a few weeks later when the Minister of Agriculture went to England, it related- to the figure of $65 million which was the balance outstanding, just as the $100 million which was mentioned earlier related to the fact that at that time there was $115 million still outstanding. It had been reduced to $65 million, and that was the amount still there. If the government of the United Kingdom had been prepared to take that up and go through the motions of paying it over as the balance, the Canadian government was prepared to accept it.
Having said that, I then point out that we are not simply in the position that the government of the United- Kingdom has stated that it is not prepared to pay any more; we are in the position that the government that is asking that this item be approved declared by its own formal communication on May 30 of last year that it agreed that the government of the United Kingdom had fully discharged all obligations under that contract. That being so, there are no obligations remaining under the contract. I come back to the position that seems so obvious and yet apparently requires re-emphasis:	that if
something is to be done, then we should be told what the principle is upon which that payment is to be made. According to the statement of the government, it is not under the contract.
We now are asked to pass an item of $65 million with no explanation as to the principle which will govern this case or guide members of this house in the future when considering

the application of that principle to other cases. Not only are we told by the Prime Minister that this is not a subject of mathematical calculation; we are told that it is not something that can be calculated in a mathematical manner.
The fact is that the very remarkable statement yesterday of the Minister of Agriculture, which ranged all the way from a political fight in Saskatchewan to a veiled warning to the press that if they did not modify their remarks about him somebody might be haled before the bar of the house, was interlarded with a lot of unrelated figures which in some way that met his satisfaction finally worked out to $65 million. In this case I prefer, and I think members of the house are likely to prefer, to take the statement of the Prime Minister that it is not arrived at by any mathematical process. The Prime Minister has related it to the one figure to which it can properly be related, and that is the balance of the loan that British had coming to them.
That being so, we as elected representatives of the people are being asked to approve a payment of $65 million under no declared principle and under no mathematical calculation. I simply wish to govern the remark I have made by what I said before. I am satisfied that members of this house coming from all parts of Canada are prepared to support any clearly declared and sound principle which will assure that wheat producers, and agricultural producers of any kind, industrial producers or those whose services are required, shall be properly compensated where that production or those services are taken over by compulsion. I have emphasized that at a time when this government has assumed such sweeping emergency powers it is important that some principle be established which will let the people know what they may expect where there is to be compulsion. Nevertheless we have no facts before us from which we can say whether this is too much or too little. It is for that reason that I think hon. members of this house will find it difficult to justify their course if they vote in this particular case.
I come now to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. The hon. member expressed some surprise last night about the position I had taken and seemed to anticipate that I would approve this item. If he had been in the house, or if he was here and had been listening, he would have heard me make it quite clear in the afternoon that I was not prepared to approve the payment of this item, but I said further that I would not support the amendment to reduce the item to one dollar. I gave my reason. The reduction of the item to
Supply-Agriculture
one dollar indicates that we have before us information which makes it possible to fix a money value on this particular proposal of the government. I pointed out that we have no such information.


John Lambert Gibson: We have the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, have we not?


George Alexander Drew: There is no place in the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in which he places a value of one dollar on this payment. On the contrary, I think he gave us most conclusive reasons why he thought that nothing should be paid.


John Lambert Gibson: That is what I mean

one dollar.


George Alexander Drew: We have the statement of
the Minister of Trade and Commerce that in his opinion nothing further was owing, and also that in his opinion the British government had fully lived up to the contract. Whether he is right or whether he is wrong, that is the record of what he said. Therefore, not only is there doubt as to the basis upon which this is computed; there is the argument of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that there is in fact nothing owing under this contract.
It seems to me that an amendment to reduce this item to one dollar implies the acceptance of some unstated principle, and a reduction of the amount given under that principle to what might be regarded as a contemptuous estimate of the value of what is owing under that principle. I am not prepared to support such a proposition, but I am going to vote against this item for the reasons I have given. I suggest to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that this is the proper course. In his case he apparently accepts the principle and then moves to reduce the item to one dollar. I suggest that it is much better to vote straight against the adoption of this item, and that is what I propose to do.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: Last night I think the curiosity of the house was aroused by the rather astounding speech of the Minister of Agriculture. I think he sought to leave the impression that, while western farmers were not provided for, eastern Canada farmers had been provided for through subsidies during the war years. He mentioned one item of $169 million for subsidies to the dairy industry. At the outset let me point out that the dairy industry and all other industries at that time were under a ceiling and not a floor, and that the subsidies were given after representations by the dairy industry pointing out that, to maintain production for our own people and

Supply-Agriculture
also to have a highly concentrated nutritious food for our fighting partners in Europe, it was very necessary to pay enough to maintain the high production that the dairy industry established during those years. It bears no relation whatever to the $65 million that we are now discussing.
Actually it seems to me that the payment of the $65 million is an attempt to bail the Minister of Agriculture out of a very embarrassing situation. I should like to mention two agricultural commodities that were dealt with by the minister last night, although there were many others. I have referred to the dairy industry and I want to mention cheese particularly. I know at once that the minister will say that in 1950 the producers asked that cheese be requisitioned. That is true but they did not ask that it be requisitioned at the price that the government set. The government requisitioned it at a lower figure than was suggested by the cheese producers.
As a result of these policies the cheese industry of Ontario is a vanishing one. It was the industry that absorbed a lot of the surplus milk during the summer months. Now we are paying a part of the price of that folly in the ever-increasing price of butter. Incidentally you will note that the price of margarine, the substitute for butter, the cost of which has no relation whatever to the production of butter, has followed the rise in the price of butter. We are paying the price for a policy that was shortsighted so far as the dairy industry was concerned.
It is also interesting to note that in his speech the Minister of Agriculture mentioned three people, the triumvirate, who were going to guide the destinies of this country. I suggest that the Prime Minister has many duties on his hands without trying to steer a course between the divergent views of two ministers, his right and left bowers. I thought it was a rather peculiar statement to make that either of them could make a mistake but the Prime Minister could correct them and get away with it. When eastern members of parliament have talked against the $65 million western producers have said: What about the freight assistance policy? I will tell you about the freight assistance policy. Today the government through the wheat board has the greatest monopoly in the grain trade that ever existed. Whether a monopoly is a government monopoly or otherwise it is a vicious set-up, but above all a government monopoly is certainly the most vicious.
We have reached the point now where a farmer living in western Canada cannot ship grain that he produces to a farm that he owns in eastern Canada. What do we find? The

western producer is getting very little for his feed wheat and coarse grains, and the eastern feeder is paying very high prices for these same products. Somewhere along the way the advantage of the freight assistance policy is being siphoned off. It is not being carried through either to the producer on the one hand or the ultimate consumer on the other.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Harry Oliver White: Don't be in a hurry. There was no hurry to bring down these estimates, and that is one of the reasons you are in the fix you are in now. In an attempt to correlate the divergent views of his two ministers, the Prime Minister said that the $65 million was based on expectations. That is a rather peculiar statement also because other producers in Canada have expectations. However, the Prime Minister said, answering the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth, that they would not be considered. To give you an indication of how far to the left the government has gone, the actual formula for the paying of the $65 million is a Russian communist formula. I will give it to you. It is: From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs. That is exactly what they are trying to work out.
The hon. member for Brant-Wentworth referred yesterday to the eastern winter wheat producers. He went into a lot of detail and I think he presented the problem very fairly. I have in my hand a report of a meeting at Chatham, Ontario, last summer at a time when the problem of marketing Ontario's winter wheat was most serious. I am going to quote from the Chatham Daily News of July 21, 1950. The heading of the article is:	"Growers-Elevator Men Ask
Floor on Wheat Price", and the subheading is: "150 vote in favour of distress action". In a motion that was never put to a vote Ernest Campbell suggested that a minimum of $1.90 be established as a floor price for winter wheat. In putting forward that motion he said:
Wheat is worth $1.90 as feed for animals, and it isn't unreasonable to think that it is worth 5 per cent more as feed for human beings.
The motion was seconded by G. Harry Wilson, who said:
If I sell my wheat at $1.50 will the consumer get the benefit of a cheaper price for flour and bread?
Everyone knows there was no reduction in the price of bread because of the fact that wheat was selling at $1.50 instead of $1.90 and $2. Since that time the price has risen and is fluctuating between $1.95 and $2.05, or even more; I am told I am putting a low price on it. At that time it was suggested that a floor price be established. The right

lion. Minister of Trade and Commerce was interviewed; a lot of promises were made to the growers-


Mr. Howe:: Just a moment. What did the minister tell that delegation?


Harry Oliver White: Let me read from this article, under the heading "Ottawa Trip":
The growers spent much ol their time reviewing developments. They heard detailed reports on the meeting ten days ago when elevator men and growers decided that something would have to be done if wheat was to sell for more than $1.50.
A trip to Ottawa followed and ultimately Hon. C. D. Howe announced that elevator space would be available for farmers to store their wheat until the price improved. Later he admitted that he had hinted that the Canada wheat board might again enter the picture to take care of any surplus.
It was suggested at that time that storage space would be provided, and I believe the minister made arrangements under which storage space was made available at Sarnia, Ontario. But the cruel part of it was the cost of about 18 cents per bushel. By the time the farmers got their wheat to Sarnia for storage they figured they might have to wait a long time to even get their storage costs out of it, so most of them took a loss. This article goes on:
Strongest and most vocal of the delegations from outside Kent was the one from Essex. Ed1. Nicholson, Essex, told the meeting he had tried to find storage for 5,000 bushels and had been turned down by Walkers in Windsor, operators of one of the large elevators.
So he had to sell and take a loss. I realize now, of course, that wheat was not covered by the prices support act, but the government can find a way around other difficulties when they wish, and a way could have been found here. Where there is a will there is a way, but the government had not the will to do anything about it. As a result the wheat growers suffered. The younger men just starting in the business, many of them returned soldiers, were the chief victims. The more established farmers, with greater storage space on their farms, and who were in a financial position to hold their wheat, gained the advantage. The only thing needed was for the government to say they would use some of this $200 million under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, and the western Ontario winter wheat growers would not have had to take such a loss.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I might say that the delegation came to me and explained the situation, saying the price as of that date was $1.50 per bushel. I advised them not to take it, but to put their grain in public storage. I understand that the great bulk of them did so. Within the next day or so the price advanced
Supp ly-A griculture
to $1.65 per bushel, and today those who followed my advice are getting from $2.15 to $2.25 a bushel. It seems to me that if they had come to the government for advice instead of going to the hon. member, who obviously could not help them, they would have gotten along very well.


Harry Oliver White: The advice given by the minister and by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture was as the minister has stated; nevertheless those who could least afford it were the victims of circumstances. If the government had thought they were not going to lose any money they would have applied the price support legislation; but they thought this situation was serious and did not want to get into it, so they said winter wheat was not covered by the act. That was a way out. If they had thought it was going to turn out well, that wheat would go to $2.15, they would have made good fellows of themselves and brought in the price support act.
I want to ask one other question. Many figures were included in the statement by the minister last evening, but I have not been able to find where he said what was the actual loss to the western growers. What did they actually lose on this deal?


James Garfield Gardiner: As the leader of the opposition said a few moments ago, everyone who has spoken on this question, including myself, has said that no attempt would be made at an arithmetical calculation of any loss. That has been said by everyone who has discussed the matter. As a matter of fact the very phrase "have regard to" makes it impossible to have a mathematical calculation; but in order to satisfy the British and our own people that we were somewhat near the mark we made the calculation I put on the record last evening. That was submitted to the British as a near approach to the $100 million we had asked of them. The leader of the opposition is perfectly right when he says we submitted that figure to the British, but he does not go on to agree that $35 million taken from $100 million leaves $65 million. When they made some provision for the $35 million there was $65 million left. He does not agree, either, with what I said last evening, which nevertheless is a statement of fact, that on each occasion this question was discussed with my colleagues I suggested that an amount should be left in the loan similar to the amount we had asked the British to pay, and that amount was not there by accident.


Mr. Nowlan:: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, had it not been for one or two references made last evening.

Supply-Agriculture I am sure the committee was thrilled by the amazing show put on by the right hon. Minister of Agriculture. It was a histrionic display which would rank with any dramatic production that might be seen throughout the country. He told us, I believe, that he had thirty-three years in politics, and had been successful in winning all his elections. That must have been fairly obvious, because certainly anyone would need thirty-three years of training to put on such a display as he gave last night. He was a circus all by himself. If by any chance this public in which he places such great trust ever decided to dispense with his services I am sure he would have no trouble in finding employment as a whole three-act circus either as barker, medicine man or manager.


An hon. Member:: Are you talking about wheat?


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not talking about wheat at the moment, I am talking about the right hon. gentleman who dealt with wheat or alleged to deal with wheat last night, and the marvellous way in which he skated over thin ice. It would have brought envy to Barbara Ann Scott if she had been here to watch the performance. It is certainly a performance which we shall all recall when we remember the demonstration of a week ago, and the suggestions made of consultation as to whether action should be brought against Great Britain in an international court. Apparently the decision was that there was not enough evidence to warrant a conviction. The inference I gathered from reading that statement in Hansard was that it was something like a police magistrate dealing with someone charged with vagrancy, shrugging his shoulders and saying there was no evidence and so there was a nolle prosequi.
Having heard the debate of a week or ten days ago, you can imagine the surprise of some of us when the hon. gentleman put on the cloak-a little bit too long for him-of Sir John A. Macdonald and quoted his statement, "A British subject I was born, a British subject I will die", or as he said, "I am about to die"-even there, there was a misplaced period or comma. The minister mentioned another matter to which I should like to refer briefly, and that was apples. I am not questioning the figures which he used. I have not any doubt but that they were in accordance with his records, although there have been various figures produced in connection with that matter. As I followed him I thought he was suggesting that there have been payments made to apple growers and some other producers, so the government is asking us to make a payment to the wheat


grower on the same basis. It is that idea to which I wish to register a very brief but rather emphatic objection.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not on the same basis.


George Clyde Nowlan: It certainly was not on the same basis. I am glad the minister says that. It is true that the apple growers in Nova Scotia did receive substantial amounts of money from this government during the war years. Those were payments which the growers appreciated, but those payments were made on a very definite basis, Mr. Chairman. In the first place, it was recognized that the apple industry of Nova Scotia was a war casualty since it was dependent upon markets in Great Britain. The industry was deprived of those markets because of the exigencies of the war. The government intervened to assist the growers. As the minister suggested last night part of the consideration for this assistance, at least for some time, was that we were not allowed to ship apples to the markets of Ontario and Quebec. If we had, Mr. Chairman, the quality of those apples being what it is, undoubtedly we would have wrecked the apple industry of Ontario and Quebec. The demands for assistance which you have heard from the growers in these provinces would have been much more expensive than the cost of the assistance to the fruit industry in Nova Scotia.
The point I want to make is that the fruit industry in Nova Scotia was helped on a mathematical basis. There was no subsidy, but there was a computation of the loss on an accurate basis. I believe the minister will admit that every year representatives of that industry came to Ottawa. They met him and officers of his department as well as officers of the Department of Finance. They presented figures showing the losses they suffered, and in every case they were beaten down. I am not objecting to it, I am simply stating this as a matter of record. The departmental representatives said, "No, you may have taken that loss but the Dominion of Canada cannot assume all of it." They were finally paid on a basis which was a mathematical computation of a proportion of the losses which the fruit industry had suffered, and that is the direct opposite of the policy which is being adopted in this case. This payment is being made on a basis which none of us can compute. Apparently the hon. member for Comox-Alberni arrived at this solution by gazing in a crystal ball and picking out a dollar. We had the Minister of Agriculture suggesting $48 million. Some members suggested $300 million, and some newspapers represented it as $600 million and going up to almost a billion. You are simply told to put your finger in a glass bowl and pay whatever

amount you pull out. It is that principle we protest because it is the reversal of the principle adopted for Nova Scotia.
With respect to the payments made in Nova Scotia I want to point out that a substantial portion of those payments did not go to the growers. They were made for processing apple products which were afterwards distributed by private agencies or by the government, in accordance with government policy, to institutions and to relieve distress throughout the world. I believe that represented a substantial part of the millions to which the minister referred last night.
Those figures also contain moneys being paid for the removal of trees which formerly produced varieties suitable to the British market. Since this market is not now open to us, those trees are being removed or have been removed at a distinct sacrifice to the growers. The amount which the grower has received from this government, helpful though it may have been and appreciated as it is, is only a small part of the actually computed loss which the grower has suffered. I suggest, therefore, there is no validity whatever in using the figures paid to the fruit grower as an illustration of justification of these moneys which are to be paid to the grain producers of western Canada.
I have been confused about this matter, as I am sure other hon. members have been. We would all like to arrive at some basis upon which we could do the right thing, if such a basis can be established. No evidence has been forthcoming as to that.
I am not going to repeat the arguments which have been advanced by my leader and other speakers in this debate. I refer particularly to the statements made by the member for Royal when he reviewed the situation from the standpoint of the maritime farmer. For the reasons which he enumerated I am opposed to this payment at the moment, Mr. Chairman, and I propose to vote against it.
There are other reasons with which I shall deal briefly. We are today in a period of stress and strain for this government. The question of inflation has been before the house on various occasions during this session. What could contribute more to inflation than the payment of millions and millions of dollars at this time without any mathematical basis for it?
The Minister of Finance has been worried about cutting expenditures. He has been worried about extravagance. Undoubtedly he has exercised his influence in attempting to cut expenditures in the various government departments. What are the mail carriers in Vancouver, Regina, Ottawa or Halifax going to say when they walk their route with heavier 80709-00
Supply-Agriculture
loads realizing the little saving achieved through their sacrifice, and seeing this $65 million being paid without any basis which is discernible to themselves or anyone else in this country? What will other people say who are called upon to make similar sacrifices when they are confronted with this expenditure which has not been justified in any way?
Mr. Chairman, I hope the member for Comox-Alberni, and our genial friend the member for Temiscouata, who yesterday afternoon tried to quarterback the opposition by suggesting he was prepared to vote for a dollar, will influence the others to join with those of us from this side in expressing our opposition to what we believe is an unjustifiable decision of the government in the light of the information which has been placed before us.


Mr. Low:: Mr. Chairman, I have sat through about the most ridiculous drivel that I have ever heard talked on this subject during the wheat debate, and more particularly during the last two days. I kept out of this debate until now because the two members of the Social Credit group who were charged with the responsibility of dealing with agricultural matters had done a right good job for us, and put our position quite straightforwardly and clearly. But there have been so many foolish and stupid things said in the last two days, started by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson), of all people, that I felt I had to say something at this stage, to put myself on the record.
I sat and listened on what I thought was one of the few occasions upon which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni could have asserted what he calls his independence. You see, he does not have a single farmer, perhaps, in his whole constituency; and so he selects this occasion to demonstrate to the world that he is independent. He is independent, at the expense of 250,000 wheat farmers from whom he wants to take a measly, paltry $65 million that is being offered today as a token payment on account-not even as a final settlement. But he is going to take that away. I would like to hear him talk some time when the question of assisting lumbermen is under consideration.


John Lambert Gibson: We never asked for it.


Solon Earl Low: But you got it. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni got it during the war, and immediately after the war years; and he is getting it today through the most inflated prices I have known. All one has to do is go down to a lumberyard and try to buy a few sticks of the poorest lumber Canadians have ever been able to buy at any time-because the rest of it they are sending out of the

Supply-Agriculture
country to other markets. He will not let us have anything, but he is full of suggestions. No one, at any time, has stepped in and said to the lumber people of this country, "Although there have been certain boards"- lumber boards, perhaps-"set up to sell your lumber for you, and although you have had this kind of service from the government, we are going to take it out of their hands and superimpose another government policy upon you. Whatever your losses have been as a result of superimposing that government policy upon you, you must not complain".
Nothing like that has ever happened to the lumbermen. But I will tell him that it has been done with regard to the farmers; and I thought that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni would be the first man to see it, because usually he is fair and just. In this case, however, I am satisfied that he is playing to the people in his constituency who are not farmers.


John Lambert Gibson: No.


Solon Earl Low: He is going to be the white-haired boy, so far as those people are concerned. We have to be statesmanlike about this matter, it seems to me, and try to balance our interests for the good of all Canada. That is one of the things I want to say a word about now.
Then, by the way, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni sort of felt sorry for us down here in this end of the chamber, because he suggested we did not know what we were doing. He said we thought that $65 million was only a matter of a few moments' run of a printing press. Let me impress upon the hon. member for Comox-Alberni the fact that we most emphatically do understand, what $65 million is, just as well as he does-and perhaps a little better than he does. I do not look upon $65 million as peanuts, at all; it is a lot of money. Let me also remind him that $375 million is also a lot of money. But he is quite prepared to let the farmers of Canada carry that $375 million, calculated1 by some of the best brains in the country as being the loss to the farmers in the first two years of the contract.


John Lambert Gibson: Not by the Minister of Trade and1 Commerce (Mr. Howe).


Solon Earl Low: I understand the Minister of Trade and Commerce is in a certain position where he cannot accept that statement; and I shall show why in a minute.
But the situation is just exactly as I have stated it. Here is the statement, based upon the report of the Canadian wheat board, as set out in a sessional paper tabled in the house. It shows that in the first two years of the contract there was a net loss to the
farmers of $375,618,000. And that means simply this, that although the wheat board of Canada was set up for the purpose of marketing the farmers' wheat, they were not allowed to market that wheat and, to get what they could get for it on the world market. The government of Canada in its wisdom, or lack of wisdom, whichever way one looks at it, did superimpose upon the board a certain policy. The government interfered. It sold the wheat itself, and took affairs out of the hands of the wheat board, with the net result that in the first two years of the contract the farmers did lose $375 million.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni, along with the leader of the Progressive Conservative party (Mr. Drew), cries about how much per capita that will mean in taxation-that $65 million. The leader of the Progressive Conservative party said last night in a radio speech that it would amount to $25 per taxpayer. Certainly; but how much would it mean per taxpayer if the farmers were paid what they should be paid,-the $375 million? That is the question.
Here, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, along with all other hon. members in the house who have seemed to be opposed, to the $65 million, has never attempted to justify his position with respect to the subsidization by Canadian farmers of all the people of Canada, in the form of cheap bread.


John Lambert Gibson: You get cheap lumber and cheap fish. What more do you want?


Solon Earl Low: Cheap lumber, my eye!


John Lambert Gibson: Sure you do.


Solon Earl Low: You will have to talk a lot
louder than that to convince the Canadian people that they are getting cheap lumber.


John Lambert Gibson: Yes.


Solon Earl Low: Or cheap fish. That policy of
subsidizing the Canadian people so that they could have cheap bread ,alone cost the western farmers $136 million. That is on the basis of figures which have been supplied by the Canadian wheat board and tabled in the house.
I should like to see some of these people get up in the House of Commons and try to justify their position. Let them get up and argue that 25 per cent of the population of Canada ought to bear the full cost of subsidizing all the people of Canada for cheap bread. Let them get up on their hind legs and do that. And when you do, then you will be entitled to move that this $65 million be cut down to $1. But until you do, and can supply the figures to back


Mr. MacKenzie:: I had no great thought of taking part in this debate until the last few minutes. I would not go so far as to say that hon. members who did not agree with me were talking a lot of nonsense and did not know what they were talking about. I should like to give a man at least credit for his own views, and appreciate that probably he might be as near right as I am myself. I think it is a mistake, and I am sorry that anything has entered into this debate that indicates any hostility toward, or comparison between, subsidies or grants drawn from the east to the west.
I am now talking about agricultural subsidies, and particularly with reference to wheat. I agree with the hon. member who has just spoken that after all agriculture is the basic industry of Canada. That being so, I still think that we must have a prosperous agriculture before we can have a prosperous dominion. I should like to see the western wheat growers and the eastern wheat growers have all the prosperity that they can get.
I want to make a reference to the question that has been raised by the hon. member for Middlesex East. He has mentioned it several times, and again this afternoon he referred to a meeting that he attended in Chatham last year. I attended that meeting myself, and I was one of the delegation that came down here to Ottawa to interview the officials of the Department of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce to see if something could be done to help the situation, because we had a lot of wheat on our hands and no storage, and no place to put it. At

Supply-Agriculture
that time the hon. member for Middlesex East said, and he said it again this afternoon, that there should be some provision made for that under the Agricultural Prices Support Act. I agreed with him. I remember quite distinctly when the prices support act was brought into effect. It was on August 15, 1944, and it made provision for supporting agricultural produce, and the amount was not to exceed $200 million. I was here when that act was brought into effect and became operative. I quite appreciated that it did not take wheat into consideration. Section 2 of the act reads:
(a) "Agricultural product" means any natural product of agriculture (except wheat) designated by the governor in council and includes processed meat, dairy and poultry products, if so designated.
Therefore, under the Agricultural Prices Support Act we have no authority to put a floor price under wheat. I would say to the hon. member that when the Agricultural Prices Support Act comes up for amendment we should try to have it enlarged or made broad enough to embrace Ontario wheat, because it is true that we do not operate under the wheat board. We did at one time, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture well know, and it did not operate very successfully in the east.
When we came to Ottawa and went to the Department of Agriculture-I think the minister was in the west, but his deputy was here-we were told that under the act they had no power to give us any support out of this $200 million. We went to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and he said: "You are not under the wheat board, and we have no authority to purchase your wheat." The only thing that could be done, and it worked out fairly satisfactorily, was to provide storage for the wheat, which they did, and the wheat is now selling at reasonably good prices.
I do want to put something on record that I think should be there. Last night the Minister of Agriculture said that he was carrying around in his pocket the answer to something that was going to be put on the record regarding eastern subsidies, and he had it nearly worn out. I am glad that he had the opportunity to give it. I do not believe that we should go into all the details of it, but I would say this. I received this information from the Department of Finance. It may not be exactly correct, but if it is not correct it is their fault, because they gave it to me. I do want to put on record some of the subsidies that have been paid to the wheat producers and to the wheat farmers of western Canada.

Take the wheat acreage reduction plan. That was a subsidy from 1941 to 1947. It was a policy which induced the people to go out of wheat growing and into the growing of coarse grains and summer fallow. I remember quite well when it was brought up and discussed in the house. It was discussed for some time. From 1941 to 1947 the amount expended on this plan was $86,389,000.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Why beat a dead horse?


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: Then there was prairie
farm assistance. That is something that has been before this house and debated at great length. From 1939 to 1950 inclusive approximately $125,806,000 has been paid out. I am not giving the odd hundreds because in these figures they do not count very much.


Major James William Coldwell: Will the hon. member
answer a question? Is that over and above-


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: Just a minute! Let me finish my remarks. I know what the hon. member is going to ask.


Major James William Coldwell: Is that over and above the
amount contributed by the farmers themselves?


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: Pardon me. That is the total amount. But the Department of Agriculture through the various offices told me that the western grower had made a contribution to that, the people who delivered their grain and their wheat. They said to me, if you took one-quarter you would hit it about right. I took one-third to be sure I was right so one-third of that is the contribution of the western farmers who delivered the wheat at various places from year to year. The amount they contributed would be $41,935,000. When you take that amount from the total the amount paid by the government would be $83,871,000. I think that is correct. The prairie farm rehabilitation vote for 1950-51 was $35,257,000. I am not taking in the various subsidies that were paid under that vote, but there was the St. Mary river and major irrigation work amounting to $13,809,000. The major portion under the prairie farm rehabilitation vote was $49,495,000.
I come now to the losses on wheat board operations. In 1935 the losses on the wheat board amounted to $11,858,000. In 1936 there was a smaller amount. In 1938, the amount was $61,525,000. I remember being in the house when this question was brought up. The price of wheat was pegged at 87J cents. I want hon. members to understand that we in Ontario have some problems to face and in that year, according to the bureau of statistics, we sold our wheat for 55 cents per bushel average. That was one reason why I felt

that we should try operations under the Canadian wheat board, which we did. However, it was not successful as they had no storage for our wheat and all they could do was sell it as it was threshed. In 1939 the losses amounted to $8,413,000, giving total losses on wheat board operations of $81,846,000.
That amount can be considered as assistance to grain growers in western Canada since 1939, and in all it makes a total of $301,602,000 paid to western grain growers since 1939.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is the hon. member including that last amount of $61,000,000 and the other amounts in 1935 and 1936?


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: For the wheat board
operations?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. The hon. member mentioned a loss in 1935, a loss in another year and then $61,000,000 in 1939.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: In 1938. I have record of no losses since 1939 under wheat board operations.


James Garfield Gardiner: For the 1938 crop it was $61,000,000. The figures that were put out yesterday were from the time the war started.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: I quite appreciate that. I do not think we should go into all these questions that have been asked about the subsidies that have been paid to the east. I am not going to enumerate them.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I make just one correction. The figures which I gave yesterday were not figures applying to the east or the west. For example, the figures on dairying applied right across the country, and also the figures on livestock. Those figures are now being used as applying only to the wheat farmers.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: I have obtained from the Department of Finance details of the subsidies paid during the period 1939 to 1950. For cheese and cheese factories, $15,943,000. Subsidies to apple growers have been discussed. The assistance on freight for western feed is something that has been given a lot of publicity. From 1941 to January 1, 1951, a total of $159,336,000 was paid out. Premiums on hogs, $50,957,000, but that would apply to all Canada.
I felt that these figures should be placed on the record so that we may know what subsidies have been paid to grain growers in western Canada and how they apply in regard to the $65 million that is being asked for now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this item of $65 million on the present basis that has been laid before us and I intend to
Supply-Agriculture
vote against it. I should like to put on the record some of the reasons why I am opposed to it and to ask other hon. members if in the light of the information that has been given and of their own statements they too will not agree that this item should not be allowed to pass.
First, I want to say that I agree entirely with what was said by the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings with regard to the payment to apple growers being on an entirely different basis from what is being asked here today. I am referring now particularly to the apple growers of British Columbia. They lost their United Kingdom market owing to the shortage of dollars. However, in this case the Minister of Trade and Commerce has assured us that under the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement the wheat growers of Canada secured a larger share of the British market than they had ever had before.
We have asked for justification of this item; we have asked to be told the basis on which the $65 million has been arrived at; but we have not yet been given that information. We have had a large number of completely conflicting statements, not only from ministers of the government who are particularly concerned but from private members on both sides of the house. These statements have been so conflicting as to make it clear that no member, even with the best will in the world and the greatest desire to understand the basis upon which this payment is being asked, could possibly justify support for the payment of $65 million.
At a rough count we have had no fewer than twenty-one different conflicting statements, and I am including the statement made by the hon. member for Peace River just a few minutes ago. The hon. member for Souris, an experienced wheat farmer, estimates the loss at close to $500 million. The Minister of Agriculture stated yesterday he had recommended the holding back on the British loan of $100 million to cover the losses for the first two years of the contract. Yesterday the minister gave five different figures which might be regarded as the total of the losses under the contract. He started with the $100 million, to which I have referred. He then referred to a possible loss of $350 million on one basis of calculation. Another figure was $166 million on another basis, and $118 million on still another basis. Finally we had a figure of $92 million on his fifth proposed basis.
The hon. member for Melfort suggested that the loss was $431 million. The hon. member for Battle River suggested it was

Supply-Agriculture
$568 million. The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe suggested that by various computations it might run even as high as $1,000 million. The hon. member for Calgary East suggested that it was $338 million in the first two years. The hon. member for Acadia suggested, that it was $375 million in the first two years. On an earlier occasion the Minister of Agriculture suggested $166 million.
The,hon. member for Assiniboia said it was $555 million. The hon. member for Bow River said it was $568 million. The Minister of Trade and Commerce with most welcome candour said that he did not know just from what point of view the losses could be reckoned. On another occasion the Minister of Agriculture said that he was not sure, and his five different totals would indicate that that is so. He said yesterday, as recorded at page 1475 of Hansard:
It may surprise my hon. friends when they go home at Easter to find out that what I stated here very early in the debate is true, namely, that I have not yet met a single farmer who was asking for 25 cents a bushel-
He went on to say:
-and that I was much nearer right than some of the others are.
The minister does not on this occasion suggest that he is actually right. Then the hon. member for Comox-Alberni suggests that the loss is $1. The hon. member for Leeds shares the same view. He suggests we give $1. The hon. member for Temiscouata suggests that the loss is $1, and said he would be prepared to support an amendment to that effect.


An hon. Member:: Where is he?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member for Meadow Lake, on the Liberal side of the house, said that at $65 million the farmers would probably be glad but he asked that it be based on 10 cents a bushel which would be $78 million. The hon. member for Macleod said that if the farmers were paid $265 million no one would know the difference. Then the hon. member for Peace River referred this afternoon to the payment of $65 million as a measly, paltry payment of $65 million, only a payment on account.
Finally, to cap the statements, we have the Prime Minister who said that from the start it had been clearly understood that there could not be any mathematical calculation of the consequences of the "have regard to" clause, and $65 million was only a rough approximation of the measure of loss or of expectations, as he put it, of the growers. In addition to the twenty or more conflicting figures which have been given, we have had four different general statements from the ministry as to the basis upon which this r. Fulton.]
money is being requested. Not even the cabinet is agreed on the basis on which this payment should be made. Yet they ask us to approve a huge item of $65 million at a time like this when they themselves can get no closer to agreement on the very basis on which they are asking it.
We start with the Minister of Agriculture who said at first that it was to compensate the farmers because the British had not lived up to their obligations under the agreement. We go from there to the Minister of Trade and Commerce who said that he did not know on what basis the losses could be reckoned, and that in fact the farmers had never been more prosperous than they had under the contract, which had worked to their great advantage. We go from there to the Prime Minister who says that the basis of payment agreed upon by the government is the expectations of certain producer groups. Then we come back to the fourth basis put forward by the Minister of Agriculture yesterday which conflicts even with his earlier statement that it was because of the default of the British.
Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture said that he could produce figures to show that the payment should be made because of the difference between what the farmers had received and what they would have received if they had obtained world prices for their produce. Of course, Mr. Chairman, it is not surprising that the Minister of Agriculture should make one statement of policy on one occasion and another statement of policy on another occasion. He does not hesitate to differ from his colleagues in the cabinet. Now he has carried it one further logical stage. He does not hesitate to differ from the statement which he made just a week ago in explanation of this request.
I say we need not be surprised at finding this lack of consistent principle, this lack of cabinet solidarity, because the Minister of Agriculture yesterday set forth as his policy that he felt there was no need for consistent statements to be made on different subjects by different ministers, not even the necessity for consistent statements with regard to government policy. At page 1448 of Hansard the Minister of Agriculture stated that that situation should give rise to no wonder, particularly in dealing with the present government, because he said:
One of the reasons why we are satisfied to be where we are-
He was referring to himself and the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
-is that we both know that we can afford to make statements knowing that we might be incorrect...

r"
I wonder if the Minister of Trade and Commerce agrees that he can afford to make statements knowing that he might be incorrect. Nevertheless the Minister of Agriculture, apparently having set that forth as a principle, resents the fact that sometimes it is suggested that his statements are incorrect. I do not know why he should resent that. After all, he says: We know we can afford to make statements even if we know we are incorrect "because we have a leader who does not make many mistakes."
I point out therefore that it is no wonder that we have these conflicting statements before the house as to what is the actual basis of payment. It is no wonder that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce have constantly contradicted each other from the start of this debate. It is no wonder that the Prime Minister had to attempt to reconcile their statements, and the only reconciliation he could effect was to say: Neither of them is correct and the reason we are making the payment is because of the expectations of certain producer groups.
Therefore we have the position that the House of Commons is being asked to vote $65 million without any logical, consistent or coherent explanation of why the taxpayers should be asked to provide that sum of money. We are in a position where we have no basis for this item except the expectations referred to by the Prime Minister. There is a most peculiar thing about these expectations. The Prime Minister indicated that a very large factor contributing to the arousing of these expectations was the statement made by the British food minister. So we are being asked to subscribe to the government policy of payment of $65 million because of a statement of a British minister. I might ask the Prime Minister, I might ask the government, I might ask the Minister of Finance: Since when has the financial or fiscal policy of this government depended upon statements made by British ministers? Since when has the Liberal party reverted to the policy of government from Downing street? The ministers apparently are not prepared to answer, I take it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I take it that no definite date can be set for the commencement of this policy and that it has been going on for some time. Certainly it is the only basis upon which we can raise this payment of $65 million if we are to take the statement the Prime Minister made in the course of the debate that the expectations were aroused by the statement of the British food minister, and it is on the basis of the expectations of
Supply-Agriculture
the producer groups that this money is to be paid. I should like to hear the Minister of Finance tell us some time how he justifies asking the taxpayers to put up this money when the minister, as other members have pointed out, has with probably considerable difficulty achieved a reduction in the estimates this year for normal expenditure of some $35 million according to the difference between this year's estimates and last. He sees a reduction of $35 million on ordinary account, and I wonder how he justifies the payment of $65 million on the basis of expectations aroused by the statement of a minister of another government.
In the last statement by a minister as to the basis for this payment the Minister of Agriculture came back to the difference he alleges between what the farmers received and what they would have received at world prices. If that is the basis, whose fault is it that the farmers lost money under the contract? Surely the fault lies with the government whose marketing policy this was. If there be a loss, the basis of which we have not yet been told, that loss is the fault of the government which insisted upon this marketing policy that was attacked in the house by the leader of this party in 1946. The Minister of Agriculture was responsible; yesterday he claimed credit for the marketing policy that has produced this result. If that is the case I can see no other reason for the payment of this money to make up a loss incurred by the farmers under that policy than to retrieve the reputation of the minister, whose lack of qualifications as a dealer in grain has been exposed by the way this contract has worked out.
In 1946 our leader was opposed to this contract. I am therefore opposed to the voting of this money, when we can draw no other conclusion than that the purpose is to redeem the reputation of the Minister of Agriculture.


John Lambert Gibson: I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member for Peace River speak as he did today, with some little heat. That is most unusual for him, because ordinarily he is very good-natured in his remarks. I ask him to accept my word that I did not move my amendment merely because of its political significance, nor because of the fact that there are no farmers in my riding. That statement is hardly accurate. I wish he would come out and see me sometime; I would show him some beautiful dairy country in my constituency. Political kudos means very little to me. I certainly have no aspiration to lead a political party in Canada, but I

Supply-Agriculture
rather gather that very large sections of the Canadian people feel the same way about this payment as I do.
I was amazed at the rapid change of heart of the Conservative party. When I moved a comparable motion on the second reading of a bill, having practically the same effect, not a single member of the opposition supported me. I am glad this amendment to reduce the amount of the vote to $1 has had some effect on their thinking, and so it has served a useful purpose. I rather gathered from the speech of the leader of the opposition that he had no intention of supporting my motion.


George Alexander Drew: You are bright if you gathered that. I was definite enough.


John Lambert Gibson: It is very seldom the hon. member speaks so clearly that I can understand the point he is trying to make. On this occasion I was able to follow him, which I think speaks well for the speech he made. I feel now that my purpose would be very well served if I support the hon. gentleman. I am going to be a little more generous than he has been; perhaps I do not need the political kudos of having a motion of mine voted upon as much as he does. That being so, if I have unanimous consent I shall be glad to withdraw my motion, and when the appropriate time comes I intend to support the motion of the leader of the opposition.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Has the hon.
member leave to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The amendment is withdrawn. Shall item 576 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Item agreed to: yeas, 83; nays, 21.
Production Service-Health of animals-
573. Compensation for animals slaughtered, including compensation for eggs destroyed from infected premises in accordance with regulations of the governor in council-further amount required, $450,000.


Mr. Blackmore:: Before this item carries I think a word or two should be said in reply to the remarks of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent a few moments ago. I refrained from saying anything at the time because of my desire to get the item through. In all the unhappiness felt by a number of members from British Columbia and the east over the amount of assistance given the farmers of the west, they should bear in
[Mr. Gibson. J
mind that most of those farmers are located in what is called the Palliser triangle. Many years ago the Palliser triangle was completely condemned as a possible agricultural area. Now, because of the courage of men who have gone in and settled there, we.have taken out of that area an untold amount of wealth, and there are still tremendous possibilities for the creation of wealth there, if we give a ghost of a chance to the people who are struggling to create it. If hon. members will think it over I am sure they will realize that from a national standpoint the money we have put into the Palliser triangle to date has amounted to a pretty sound investment.
It has been suggested that as an example I say a word or two about the tremendous sum of money represented by one acre of sugar beets in my constituency, as a result of irrigation. I have not the figures before me, and I have no desire to detain the committee, but I do hope that members of parliament across Canada will come to realize that this country has to move forward as a whole, and we simply must not encourage such sectional talk as we have been hearing.
I want to say just a word or two to the British Columbia members. The finest market British Columbia has is down there in the Palliser triangle; yet they want to take away from those people the money with which they would buy British Columbia goods.


John Lambert Gibson: On a question of privilege, I think the hon. member should be fair enough to recall that I said I would willingly vote twice as much money if it was properly invested in the prairies.


John Horne Blackmore: I am glad the member
for Comox-Alberni spoke up. I have just listened to the member for Kamloops. For a man, the products of whose constituency depend so much on Alberta and Saskatchewan for their markets, to say anything against this $65 million payment that will mean a larger market for the products of his constituency, is something which quite surpasses my comprehension.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sure it would.


John Horne Blackmore: I hope British Columbia
members can come to realize that the money put into the Palliser triangle is not wasted. Much of that money will go to buy British Columbia lumber, British Columbia fruit, British Columbia mineral products, and fertilizer and British Columbia poultry products. I am not going just now to say anything more about this matter.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I wonder if I might make my annual appeal on these final supplementary

estimates? The committee know that, as a rule, they include no items on which policy has not already been approved in the main estimates, but in which there has been an underestimate of the amount required. There were some exceptions in these supple-mentaries, such as the wheat payment, the debate upon which has just been concluded, the amount for the superannuation fund, T.C.A. travel, and so on. I believe, however, we have completed consideration of all the items on which any new policy was involved. I would hope that such further discussion as may be found necessary-as a rule we do not have much on these final supplementaries

could be kept strictly relevant to the details of the items.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The item before the committee is No. 573.


Harry Oliver White: Mr. Chairman, I understand some flocks of poultry in my county have been destroyed. The owners of some of those flocks have been compensated, but others have not. When I have endeavoured to obtain some information about it I have found that Dr. Boisvert of London is away on statutory leave. Could the minister say whether there is more than one type of poultry disease for which the birds are slaughtered? If so, what are they, and will this vote take care of the farmers who have not been compensated in my county during the past year?


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall just give an official
statement on the vote. It is necessary to provide additional funds for this object, that is compensation for animals slaughtered, of expenditures chiefly on account of the large sum required to pay compensation in connection with the control of Newcastle disease. In the main vote, No. 18, there was only a minor provision of $10,000 for this purpose. A supplementary vote of $550,000 was obtained and it was expected to be sufficient. The over-all compensation claims as of March 1, 1951, total approximately $825,000. An unusually large carry-over of compensation claims from the fiscal year 1949-50 in connection with the control of bovine tuberculosis has been responsible also to a considerable extent for the depletion of this appropriation. The large carry-over could not be avoided as the cleansing and disinfecting of infected premises was retarded greatly by the bad weather near the end of the fiscal year. Compensation cannot be paid until the cleansing and disinfecting is satisfactorily completed.
Supply-National Defence
As of March 1, 1951, there are compensation claims totalling approximately $375,000 that have been released, and the payment of which is held up pending appropriation of additional funds. It is estimated that another $75,000 of compensation claims will be released for payment before the end of the present fiscal year.


Mr. Charlton:: According to an item in the
Ottawa Journal tonight the Hull lab men have licked the dread poultry scourge. Could the minister give us anything definite on that? They are producing a vaccine now for this Newcastle disease?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are producing a
vaccine now, and this sum is to provide for all the means whereby the battle is being waged against Newcastle disease.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
601. To provide for the defence forces of the navy, army and air services and to authorize total additional commitments, including authority notwithstanding section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, for the current year for this purpose of $47,810,000 against which commitments it is estimated that the total additional expenditure in 1950-51 will not exceed a further amount of $19,410,000.
Douglas Charles Abbott: In essence, this is a sort of transfer item. It relates, as will be seen from the details, to the acquisition of buildings, structures and so on. In essence, it is almost entirely defence housing which was built and financed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In considering the position it was felt by both the Department of National Defence and the treasury that this was more properly an item for the defence department. This is defence housing in the more remote areas, not in the settled areas. Consequently this vote is to enable the defence department to be charged with the cost of these houses with the proper credit to the Central Mortgage and Housing account. It is not a cash item. The houses have been built, of course, but it is to effect that transfer.
I am not in a position to say much about the defence research item. I do not recall offhand all the details,, but it is an additional amount required, partly for construction, which is in accordance with the agreed policy. But the $19 million item is a transfer item of defence housing cost from Central Mortgage and Housing to the Department of National Defence.


George Alexander Drew: As I understand it, it involves no new policy in regard to the construction of houses?


Douglas Charles Abbott: None.

Supply


George Alexander Drew: It simply represents the decision that it is more proper for this to be charged to national defence than Central Mortgage and Housing.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right, rather than being considered an asset in connection with Central Mortgage and Housing in connection with ordinary rental. These houses will not be sold, but they are rented to these members of the armed forces.


George Clyde Nowlan: Will there be a similar item in the general estimates under which a discussion can be held?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, there is a similar item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
607. Railway mail service, further amount required, $5,000,000.
Douglas Charles Abbott: This large item perhaps needs a word of explanation. It represents an additional due because of the increased rates payable to the railways for the railway mail service. Following long negotiations with the railways a new scale of rates, for the carriage of mail was introduced, and this reflects the added cost.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
612. Prince Rupert drydock-to provide for operating losses and essential repairs in the fiscal year 1950-51, in accordance with the terms of order in council P. C. 29/4700 of September 30, 1950, $157,000.
Mr. Applewhaite:: I should like to speak on item 612, under the heading Department of Public Works. I note that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is in- his seat. In this connection may I just take one minute of the time of this committee to point out to the government that this is a drydock and shipbuilding plant owned by this country. Its record during the past war included the construction of thirteen 10,000-ton ships; four minesweepers; two 1,500-ton China coasters, and a tremendous amount of repair work on ships up to 22,000 tons. In defence construction ensuing, which will be put into effect by the government during the coming months, I would urge that they take into consideration making use of their own plant and equipment. If it were only -a matter of community pride then I would not feel justified in bringing this request forward; but any additional expenses which would be involved in using this dock, as against using one which is perhaps closer to the desired point, would be only an .additional cost to some other department of government, or to some other agency such ,as the Canadian National Railways.

Therefore I submit that the advantage of having a plant of that nature in operation, and capable of immediate use .at any time in the location, well justifies consideration of the plea I now make.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
614.	National Gallery of Canada, further amount required, $55,000.
Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Would the minister say what works of art were secured. Have they been acquired already?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes. Three of the pictures are of the Vollard collection. They are Portrait de Paysan, by Cezanne; Foret, by Cezanne; and Chevaux de Courses, by Degas.


Mr. Ferguson:: Where are those great works of art?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I might explain that these are paid for out of the blocked funds which were discussed in the house. They are most valuable and splendid works of art, and a great .acquisition to our gallery.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Serious consideration should be given to these matters before such expenditures are made. Again it is the old taxpayer who is suffering.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT Engineering and water resources branch-
615.	Notwithstanding the Trans-Canada Highway Act, to authorize and provide for a payment to the provinces of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and Newfoundland, which have entered into an agreement with Canada for construction of a part of the trans-Canada highway, in respect of construction of the highway carried out between December 10, 1949 and the day on which these provinces respectively signed the agreement with Canada, in accordance with the regulations of the governor in council; the amount paid to each province, however, not to exceed fifty per centum of the cost to the province of the said construction as determined by the governor in council; the maximum amount authorized to be expended by section 7 of the Trans-Canada Highway Act to be decreased to the extent of any amount paid pursuant to this vote-further amount required, $1,100,000.
George Clyde Nowlan: I would ask the minister to make a brief statement on this item. I notice that Nov.a Sootia is not included among those provinces entering into the agreement. The minister, I believe, made .a statement a while ago which signified that he was waiting for further instructions and further consultation with the Nova Scotia government. I believe the government of that province has been in touch with him with respect to the matter. Perhaps he would take a

minute or two to explain the situation in Nova Scotia as applied to this transaction.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, Nova Scotia has not indicated to us that they intend to sign the trans-Canada highway agreement. I know that at the present time they are surveying a route which they have designated and made public. I presume that depending upon whether that route will qualify for the co-operative approach under the agreement, the government of Nova Scotia will consider further whether or not it should enter into the agreement, the same as the other eight provinces have done.


George Clyde Nowlan: Then, the Nova Scotia government is not waiting for word from this government. If anything, the situation is reversed. The statement has been made that they were waiting.


Robert Henry Winters: The Nova Scotia government is not waiting for anything from this department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE General administration-
619. Commodities branch, including assistance in the development of markets and the procurement of supplies, and contributions as detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $75,250.
Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Is the
development of markets general, or are there special efforts in any one direction?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a general program of
trade development. Occasionally special situations arise which call for unexpected expenditures. But generally speaking, the vote covers the deficit in the appropriation for the trade commissioner service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
622. To reimburse the Canadian wheat board for final balance of the deficit incurred from the operation of the 1948 crop flax account for the period August 1, 1948 to July 31, 1950, authority P.C. 3376, dated July 28, 1948, $2,536,775.
John Alpheus Charlton: Does this include flax grown in eastern Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


John Alpheus Charlton: Not at all?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, it arises out of a price support policy applying to the flax crop of 1948. At that time the government placed a floor of $4 under flax grown in the designated area which, as my hon. friend knows, is western Canada. Under that floor price policy the government had to buy about 10 million
Supply-Trade and Commerce bushels of flax, which we have been liquidating over a period. It is all liquidated now. There was a total loss of about $6 million, of which this is the last instalment.


John Alpheus Charlton: There is a considerable amount of flax grown in eastern Canada. How does the price compare?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They seem to sell theirs without help from us.


John Alpheus Charlton: Perhaps they do not kick up so much fuss.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
624. To provide for costs to be incurred in the planning and construction of emergency works to safeguard against the dangers of floods in the Red River valley and the Winnipeg area generally, under an agreement or agreements with the province of Manitoba which shall provide that Canada shall meet 75 per cent of the costs of such works, excluding the costs of land, and that Manitoba, or its municipalities or residents, shall meet the remaining cost, including the cost of land-further amount required, $1,353,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Has there been any discussion between the federal government and the government of Manitoba with respect to the position of homes in Winnipeg behind the dikes? I refer to homes between the dikes that have been or are being built, and the river.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Those are not matters for the federal government. The agreement between the federal government and the province provides that the federal government will build dikes on land provided by the province -which we have done. The federal government does not have anything to do with houses or property outside the dikes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I asked the question because I had understood, subject to correction, that Premier Campbell indicated to the Manitoba legislature last fall that consideration would be given to discussing this matter with the municipal governments concerned and also with the federal government. I take it there has been no request by Manitoba for any such discussion.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would not say that I positively remember that; but in any event considerations of that sort are excluded from the responsibilities of the Winnipeg diking board, to which this government is a contributor.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Payments to or for veterans and dependents-
641. To authorize payment to David Bruce Steele, under the Pension Act, of such benefits as would be awarded under the said act if the disabling condition had been incurred by him during service in world war II, $1,050.
1512	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Mr. Cardiff: What is the nature of the claim under this item?
Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veierans Affairs):: Mr. Chairman, these two items are to authorize compensation for what might be called medical accidents which occurred in hospitals of the department, in the course of treatment of the veterans whose names appear in this and the following item. Although it was not established that the injuries suffered by these two veterans while being treated were the result of negligence of the department, nevertheless the director general of the treatment services considered there was reasonable doubt, and recommended that these men be awarded the same amount of compensation as would have been awarded to them for similar disability suffered in the service. This was done last year, and payment was made last year by order in council. However, it was observed that a long established practice of paying lifelong pensions should be done under a statute or by special appropriation under the act, and that is what we are doing this year.


Mr. Cardiff:: I was not objecting to it at all. I was trying to get consideration for a case that I had brought to the minister's attention some time ago. I have always claimed that no law can operate without some flexibility given to those who are operating it. That is why I wanted to know what this particular item was for.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Indian affairs branch-Education-
579. Grants to residential schools-further amount required, $60,668.
Mr. Knight:: I am interested in votes for education. The other day I was pleased to note a vote for education for the town of Rimouski, and I am glad to support a grant for education in any place in the dominion.
I see some money here being given to the Indian schools. When I was speaking on the Indian bill the other day I paid some tribute to the work of those institutions, and I am glad to repeat it. I do want to repeat also that I think that it is best where possible, and particularly for Indian children, that they should, where such schools are available, attend schools in their own districts, whether these schools are run on a denominational or on a public school basis.
My reason of course is simply this, as I said before, that contact can be constantly maintained as between the child and its parents, and that the educational process which goes on in the school can be conveyed daily to the home.


I know the very fine work that these residential schools are doing. I had an opportunity not very long ago to look over one of the residential schools in the constituency of the hon. member for Rosthern. It was the school at Duck Lake. The gentleman who was in charge then-and he was the principal-* said to me-it may be the same man today- that where there was inefficiency in many schools of that type, that inefficiency was due to the lack of money available. He asked me at that time-and I know he has asked other hon. members of parliament-to make a plea so that these residential schools could have the money with which they may proceed to do even better work than they are doing now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, may I have the unanimous consent of the house to suggest that as soon as we dispose of this you leave the chair until eight o'clock so that we may be available at eight o'clock to attend in the other place for royal assent to such legislation as will have been passed by that time.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, last night I made protest about the long speech that was made, but I am very happy that the agricultural estimates are through, and I shall be very glad to be here at eight o'clock.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Unless we put the bill
through we would have to wait on the pleasure of the hon. [DOT] gentlemen.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I take it that Mr. Speaker will not be required to look at the clock for perhaps five minutes or so.



WAYS AND MEANS

['Agreed.\nAt 8.15 p.m. the sitting of the house was suspended during pleasure.']
Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1951, the following sum be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, namely, the sum of $201,556,559, being the amount of each of the items as set forth in the further supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1951.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.

Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 173, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st of March, 1951.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, -and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Bill reported.
['Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1951, the following sum be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, namely, the sum of $201,556,559, being the amount of each of the items as set forth in the further supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1951.']
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Douglas Charles Abbott: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that I should now leave the chair until eight o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is possible that the debate in the other place may take a few moments yet. If the house approves I would) suggest that Your Honour might leave the chair and resume at the appropriate time with the usual notice to the members.


Mr. Speaker:: Does that meet with the unanimous approval of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 8.15 p.m. the sitting of the house was suspended during pleasure.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 9.05 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod1, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
The Royal Assent
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been- pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act for the relief of John Andrew Hague.
An act for the relief of Jane Louise Wells Kennedy.
An act for the relief of Frances Danforth Stephens Ross de Lall.
An act for the relief of Daphne May Hodgson Frosst.
An act for the relief of Celia Frances Cantlie Molson.
An act for the relief of Rowland Walter Tyner.
An act for the relief of Maeve Mary Margaret McPherson Mackenzie.
An act for the relief of Judith Francis Cohen Besner.
An act for the relief of Edith Mary Bentley Towler.
An act for the relief of Patricia Galley Mulvey.
An act for the relief of Ethel Kershaw Warren.
An act for the relief of Petrus (Peter) Surkala.
An act for the relief of Doris Demree McMullen.
An act for the relief of Isabella Potts Younger Ayton.
An act for the relief of Margaret Alice McDermid Jones.
An act for the relief of Jacqueline Moquin Vemer.
An act for the relief of Ruth Chernofsky Shaffer.
An act for the relief of Florence Lachovitz Michael.
An act for the relief of Eugenia Jean Diakonuk Cuthbertson.
An act for the relief of Ruth Moffatt Bell Lansing.
An act for the relief of Kurt Roberts, otherwise known as Kurt Rosenbaum.
An act for the relief of Margaret Stevenson Erskine Withenshaw.
An act for the relief of Cecile Duguay Quenne-ville.
An act for the relief of Margarette Marie Hyduk Towstuk.
An act for the relief of Joseph Maurice Fernando Lemieux.
An act for the relief of Donald Benedict Cullen.
An act for the relief of Valeda Ardell Derick Thorley.
An act for the relief of Martin Raymond Quinn.
An act for the relief of Kathleen Beatrice Denman Blackadar.
An act for the relief of Dora Greenwell MacKinnon.
An act for the relief of Albert Edward Desjardins.
An act for the relief of Raymond Boyer.
An act for the relief of Aline Alina Buka Allaire.
An act for the relief of Margaret Beatrice Tynan Dossin.
An act for the relief of Kathryn Louise Morrison Ralston.
An act for the relief of Gerald Tudor Parrott.
An act for the relief of Marie Leontine Juliette Henriette Giguere Fiset.
An act for the relief of Esther Marie Henning Ober.
An act for the relief of Elmsley Alexander Leftly.
An act for the relief of Ruth Landan Goodman.
An act for the relief of Yvonne Michaud Telford.
An act for the relief of Edward Albert Flewitt.
An act for the relief of Mary Margaret Lillian Phillips Campeau.
An act for the relief of Mary Zientek Latkowski.
An act for the relief of Olga Kushner Dolny.
[Stage Direction]
The Royal Assent
An act for the relief of Joseph Taite Connor.
An act for the relief of Doris Dominiqua Semuck Wardell.
An act for the relief of Ann Galganov Schwartz.
An act for the relief of Doris Mayoff Weinstein.
An act for the reUef of Jean Maurice Martel.
An act for the relief of Ann Astroff.
An act for the relief of Margaret Elizabeth Audrey Midgiey Bennett.
An act for the relief of Kathleen Agnes Margaret Saddleton Pout Boon.
An act for the relief of Bill Oleschuk.
An act for the relief of Eileen Haswell Houghton.
An act for the relief of Saul Samuel Goldsmith.
An act for the relief of Bridget Dorothea Felicity Gutmann Lowenbach Brooks.
An act for the relief of Violet Edith Hack Findlay.
An act for the relief of Cema Segall Bercovitch.
An act for the relief of Paulette Charbonneau Lanthier.
An act for the relief of Ernest Churchill.
An act for the relief of Jean Zelda Schacter Shmukler.
An act for the relief of Beatrice Sullivan Lees.
An act for the relief of Kathleen Louise Jones Robinson.
An act for the relief of Myrtle Dorcas Perry Rogers.
An act for the relief of Nell Gohenberg Lipson.
An act for the relief of Roslyn Beverly Gold Browman.
An act for the relief of Rolande Dumas Fritsch.
An act for the relief of Edith Frances Storrier Ritchie.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Isabel Pitcher Flipping.
An act for the relief of Sylvia Miller Ginsberg.
An act for the relief of Fernand Senecal.
An act for the relief of Vincent Tutino.
An act for the relief of Paulette Joly Foley.
An act for the relief of Jean Eurwen Jones Shaw.
An act for the relief of Edna Donnelly Boyle.
An act for the relief of Norma Phoebe Mary Buchanan Baker.
An act for the relief of Grace Gloria Ramsey Racine.
An act for the relief of Emily Ivy Rose Cook.
An act for the relief of Homer Leavitt Ayer.
An act for the relief of Elma Lillian Le Drew Wells.
An act for the relief of Bertha Ellen Bradley Grant.
An act for the relief of Brenda Mary Powell-Tuck Buhr.
An act to incorporate Traders General Insurance Company.
An act respecting The Dominion Association of Chartered Accountants.
An act to amend The Farm Improvement Loans Act, 1944.
An act to confer certain Emergency Powers upon the Governor in Council.
An act to incorporate The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada.
An act to incorporate Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited.
An act respecting the Department of Defence Production.
An act to amend' The United Church of Canada Act.
An act to amend The Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
An act to amend The Foreign Exchange Control Act.
An act to incorporate Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company.

An act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1952.
An act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1951.

Walter Edward Harris: the adjournment of the house.
He said: On Monday, April 2, we will resume the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill No. 79, respecting Indians. We will then take up second reading of Bill No. 148, respecting the construction and maintenance of a bridge over the St. Lawrence river; then the two resolutions standing in the name of the Minister of Resources and Development having to do with the Yukon territorial council and the northwest territorial government; then second reading of Bill No. 130, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act; then second reading of Bill No. 80, to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In that order?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 9.25 p.m. until 3 p.m. Monday, April 2.
[The following Items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Science service-
572. Animal and' poultry	pathology-further amount required, $15,000.
Production service-
Health of animals-
573.	Compensation for animals slaughtered, including compensation for eggs destroyed from infected premises in accordance with the regulations of the governor in council-further amount required, $450,000.
574.	Grants to agricultural organizations, as detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $15,000.
Marketing service-
575.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, and grants in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $313,309.
Special-
576.	To authorize and provide for a payment to the Canadian wheat board which shall be dealt with by the board in all respects as though it was money received from the sale of wheat produced in the designated area, sold and delivered to the board by producers during the pool period commencing on the first day of August, 1945, and ending on the thirty-first day of July, 1950, and to authorize the board, notwithstanding the provisions of subsections 2 and 3 of section 22 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, to distribute such amount together with

all other moneys received by the board from the sale of such wheat, after making the deductions provided for in the said section 22, among holders of certificates issued by the board pursuant to part III of the said act during the pool period aforesaid, by paying to the person named in such certificate the same sum for each bushel of wheat referred to therein, $65,000,000.

[Stage Direction]
Indian Affairs branch-Education-
579. Grants to residential schools-further amount required, $60,668.

[Stage Direction]
589.	To provide for acquisition of lands required by the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission, as required by article VIII of treaty dated May 26, 1930, between Canada and the United States for the protection, preservation and extension of the sockeye salmon fisheries of the Fraser river system, $1,277.
590.	To provide for transportation, dressing and dyeing and other expenses incidental to receiving and disposing of fur seal skins accruing to Canada pursuant to provisional fur seal agreement between Canada and the United States by exchange of notes dated December 26, 1947-further amount required, $50,000.

[Stage Direction]
The Senate-
598.	General administration-further amount required, $4,000.
House of Commons-
599.	To provide for the full sessional indemnity to members of the House of Commons-days lost through absence caused by illness, official public business, or order of the house, or on account of death during the first session of 1950-notwithstanding anything to the contrary in chapter 147 of the revised statutes, 1927, an act respecting the Senate and House of Commons, or any amendment thereto. Payments to be made as the treasury board may direct-further amount required, $3,300.
600.	To provide, notwithstanding anything contained in the Senate and House of Commons Act, for the payment to each member of the House of Commons who attended the first part of the first session of 1950, which commenced on February 16, 1950, and ended on April 5, 1950, of an amount representing the actual transportation and living expenses of such member while on the journey between Ottawa and his place of residence after the Easter adjournment of parliament on April 5, 1950, and on the return journey from his place of residence to Ottawa at the end of the recess which commenced on that date, or at any other one time during the session-further amount required, $1,200.

[Stage Direction]
Defence forces-
601.	To provide for the defence forces of the navy, army and air services and to authorize total additional commitments, including authority notwithstanding section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, for the current year for this purpose of $47,810,000 against which commitments it is estimated that the total additional expenditure in 1950-1951 will not exceed a further amount of $19,410,000.
602.	Defence research and development, subject to allocation by the treasury board-further amount required, $990,000.
Supply
Pensions and other benefits-
Militia Pension Act-
603.	Government's contribution to the permanent forces pension fund-further amount required, $1,175,166.

[Stage Direction]
Customs and excise divisions-
606.	General administration-further amount required, $5,000.

[Stage Direction]
607.	Railway mail service-further amount required, $5,000,000.

[Stage Direction]
609.	Distribution of official documents-further amount required, $1,300.

[Stage Direction]
Architectural branch-
Construction, repairs and improvements of public buildings-
Construction, acquisition, repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-further amounts required-
610.	Quebec ($81,000 less the amount of $80,999 available from savings in other listed projects detailed in previous estimates for 1950-51 for this province), $1.
611.	Ontario ($755,000 less the amount of $754,999 available from savings in other listed projects detailed in previous estimates for 1950-51 for this province), $1.
Engineering branch-
Maintenance and operation of graving docks, locks and dams, etc.
612.	Prince Rupert dry dock-to provide for operating losses and essential repairs in the fiscal year 1950-51, in accordance with the terms of order in council P.C. 29/4700 of September 30, 1950, $157,000.
Construction, repairs and improvements-harbours and rivers-
Construction, acquisition, repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and rivers works, listed in the details of the estimates provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-further amount required-
613.	Quebec ($393,000 less the amount of $392,999 available from savings in other listed projects detailed in previous estimates for 1950-51 for this province), $1.
General-
614.	National Gallery of Canada-further amount required, $55,000.

[Stage Direction]
Engineering and water resources branch-
615.	Notwithstanding the Trans-Canada Highway Act, to authorize and provide for a payment to the provinces of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and Newfoundland, which have entered into an agreement with Canada for construction of
[Stage Direction]
Supply
a part of the trans-Canada highway, in respect of construction of the highway carried out between December 10, 1949, and the day on which these provinces respectively signed the agreement with Canada, in accordance with the regulations of the governor in council; the amount paid to each province, however, not to exceed fifty per centum of the cost to the province of the said construction as determined by the governor in council; the maximum amount authorized to be expended by section 7 of the Trans-Canada Highway Act to be decreased to the extent of any amount paid pursuant to this vote-further amount required, $1,100,000.
616.	To provide for studies and surveys of the Red river basin in Canada, $145,000.
Northern administration and lands branch-
Yukon division-
617.	Operation and maintenance of services, including forest conservation-further amount required, $100,000.

[Stage Direction]
Patent and copyright office-
618.	Patent division-further amount required, $169,356.

[Stage Direction]
General administration-
619.	Commodities branch, including assistance in the development of markets and the procurement of supplies, and contributions as detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $75,250.
Canada Grain Act-
620.	Operation and maintenance, including inspection, weighing, registration, etc.-further amount required, $15,000.
Special-
621.	To reimburse the Canadian Commercial Corporation for expenses incurred in purchasing materials, supplies and equipment, etc., on behalf of the Department of National Defence under chapter 51, statutes of 1947-further amount required, $506,000.
622.	To reimburse the Canadian wheat board for final balance of the deficit incurred from the operation of the 1948 crop flax account for the period August 1, 1948 to July 31, 1950, authority P.C. 3376 dated July 28, 1948, $2,536,775.
623.	To approve transfer by the Canadian wheat board of residual amounts totalling $720,590.96, shown in the 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944 crop accounts of the board, in respect of interest that accrued pending presentation of cheques issued in distribution of the amounts in those accounts, to the crop accounts of the board for the pool period commencing August 1, 1945, and ending July 31, 1950, such amount to be deemed to be moneys received by the board from the sale of wheat produced in the designated area and sold and delivered to the board by producers during that pool period, $1.
624.	To provide for costs to be incurred in the planning and construction of emergency works to safeguard against the dangers of floods in the Red river valley and the Winnipeg area generally, under an agreement or agreements with the province of Manitoba which shall provide that Canada shall meet 75 per cent of the cost of such works, excluding the costs of land, and that Manitoba, or its municipalities or residents, shall meet the remaining cost, including the cost of land-further amount required, $1,353,000.
625.	To reimburse Defence Construction Limited for expenses incurred in procuring the construction of defence projects on behalf of the Department of National Defence, $500,000.

[Stage Direction]
626.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $20,000.
Marine service-
627.	Administration of floating equipment-further amount required, $2,500.
628.	Administration of pilotage-further amount required, $19,373.
629.	Miscellaneous services relating to navigation and shipping-further amount required, $23,883.
630.	River St. Lawrence ship channel-contract dredging in the St. Lawrence river and Montreal harbour-capital-further amount required, $491,020.
631.	To provide towards the construction of a service vessel for the eastern Arctic patrol (Estimated cost $3,000,000)-capital-further amount required, $100,000.
632.	To provide towards the reconditioning and refitting of vessels for Pacific ocean weather station "P" (Estimated cost $1,835,000)-capital-further amount required, $660,000.
General-
633.	To provide for reimbursement of the Department of Transport stores account of the value of stores destroyed or damaged beyond repair in 1950, $31,764.
Railway service-
634.	Repairs and expenses in connection with the operation and maintenance of official railway cars under the jurisdiction of the department-further amount required, $20,000.
Maritime Freight Rates Act-
635.	Additional amount in excess of the sum of
$5,869,000 already appropriated to authorize and provide for the payment from time to time during the fiscal year 1950-51 to the Canadian National Railway company of the difference (estimated by the Canadian National Railway company and certified by the auditors of the said company to the Minister of Transport as and when required by the said minister) occurring on account of the application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, between the tariff tolls and the normal tolls (upon the same basis as set out in section 9 of the said act with respect to companies therein referred to) on all traffic moved during the calendar year 1950 under the tariffs approved on the eastern lines (as referred to in section 2 of the said act) of the Canadian National	Railways-further	amount required,
[Stage Direction]
636.	Additional amount in excess of the sum of $1,450,000 already appropriated to authorize and provide for the payment from time to time during the fiscal year 1950-51, of the difference (estimated by the board of transport commissioners for Canada and certified by the said board to the Minister of Transport, as and when required by the said minister) occurring on account of the application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, between the tariff tolls and the normal tolls (referred to in section 9 of the said act) on all traffic moved during the calendar year 1950 under the tariffs approved by the following companies; Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway; Canadian Pacific Railway, including: Fredericton and Grand Lake Coal and Railway company, and New Brunswick Coal and Railway company; Cumberland Railway and Coal company;

Supply
Dominion Atlantic Railway; Maritime Coal, Railway and Power company; Sydney and Louisburg Railway-further amount required, $30,000.
637.	To provide for payment to the Canadian National Railway company for expenditures incurred in a survey of properties of the former Temiscouata Railway, $11,758.
Air service-
Administrative division-
638.	Air Service administration-further amount required, $1,000.
Radio division-
639.	Administration of the Radio Act and regulations-further amount required, $27,000.
General-
640.	To provide for expenses of the board of inquiry re investigation of the "Canadian Pilgrim" aircraft accident, $5,000.

[Stage Direction]
Payments to or for veterans and dependents-
641.	To authorize payment to David Bruce Steele, under the Pension Act of such benefits as would be awarded under the said act if the disabling condition had been incurred by him during service in world war II, $1,050.
642.	To authorize payment to Clarence M. Christie, under the Pension Act of such benefits as would be awarded under the said act if the disabling condition had been incurred by him during service in world war II, $1,550.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans Land Act-
643.	To authorize and provide for the purchase of the remaining financial interest of the United Kingdom government in the 3,000 British family settlement scheme and the New Brunswick 500 British family settlement scheme, $115,000.

[Stage Direction]
Deficits-Trade and commerce-
644.	To hereby authorize and provide for payment during the fiscal year 1950-51 to Trans-Canada Air Lines to be applied by Trans-Canada Air Lines in payment of the net deficit (certified by the auditors of Trans-Canada Air Lines) resulting from the operations of Trans-Canada Air Lines and its subsidiary, Trans-Canada (Atlantic) Limited, during the calendar year 1950; this amount to be applied
in the repayment of accountable advances made to the company from the consolidated revenue fund- Trans-Canada Air Lines (surplus), $201,206; Trans-Canada (Atlantic) Limited (deficit), $1,526,412; net deficit, $1,325,206.
Deficits-Transport-
645.	Amount required to provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1950-51 to the Canadian National Railway company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made from time to time by the national company, to the Minister of Finance and to be applied by the national company in payment of the net deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) arising in the calendar year 1950, this amount to be applied in the repayment of accountable advances made to the national company from the consolidated revenue fund-Canadian National Railways, exclusive of eastern lines (surplus), $9,540,961; eastern lines (deficit), $12,802,196; net deficit, $3,261,235.
646.	Additional amount in excess of the sum of $720,000 already appropriated to provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1950-51 to the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited (hereinafter called the company) of the amount of the deficit occurring during the year ending December 31, 1950, in the operations of the company and the vessels under the control of the company, as certified by the auditors of the company, and upon applications made by the company, to the Minister of Finance and approved by the Minister of Transport -further amount required, $308,767.
647.	Additional amount in excess of the sum of $1,159,000 already appropriated, to provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1950-51 to the Canadian National Railway company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made from time to time by the national company to the Minister of Finance, and to be applied by the national company in payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) in the operation of the Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals arising in the calendar year 1950-further amount required, $107,940.
649. Advance to Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited, upon such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine, to provide for working capital requirements, $300,000.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 2, 1951